8/24    Economics and ethics question:  The conventional response to a business
        that is engaging in unethical practices is to call for divesture from
        that business.  The problem is that unlike, say a vegetarian choosing
        to not eat meat, divesture has no effect on the amount of harm the
        business is causing.  It may depress the stock price, but that will
        make it a more attractive investment if it is a profitable company, and
        will only serve to hurt those who choose to divest later than you.  It
        would then seem that the net effect of divesture is to make the
        unethical business a better investment for those who continue to own.
        As an example, consider Altria (Phillip Morris (symbol MO)).  They have
        a P/E around 10 and are paying a 5% dividend.  If lots of people
        divested, the P/E might go to 5 and the dividend to 10%.  This would
        not encourage the board to behave any more ethically.  Is there some
        way to invest ethically that actually has a positive effect?
        \_ Well, given corporate America's maniacal focus on stock price,
           depressing the stock price is probably the most effective thing
           you can do ...
           \_ Yes. If the stock price gets too low the company becomes a
              takeover target.
              \_ Well, that wouldn't curtail the unethical behavior, although
                 it would screw the investors in the acquired company.
                 \_ It sure would, because the board would get replaced!
                    \_ No it wouldn't, because the acquiring company wouldn't
                       just throw away a highly lucrative business.
                       \_ The share price fell. This is not the sign of a
                          successful business. The board would be replaced
                          in a takeover. How often are companies bought
                          and *every single* board member is kept? Some
                          might be, but some will lose their jobs.
                          \_ Board members and investors will lose money, but
                             will the newly-acquired company really cease the
                             unethical but lucrative behavior?  If not then
                             divesting was a pointless exercise.
                          \_ They don't want jobs.  They made many millions
                             in the take over.  These are not people concerned
                             with being jobless.
                 \_ You can't stop anyone from doing anything without
                    recourse to the legal system.  All you can do is to
                    punish the company for their action.  Slashing the
                    stock price through divestiture is punishment.  Oh,
                    just a minute.  I am arguing this with a guy who can't
                    even spell divestiture?  I've been trolled.
                    \_ "... punish the company for *its* action" if you are to
                       pick on someone.
                       pick on someone else's English.