Archive link The trend to pass laws that make violations criminal when they would have been civil violations back in saner times is one of the worst things about the unleashed Republican party....
The trend to pass laws that make violations criminal when they would have been civil violations back in saner times is one of the worst things about the unleashed Republican party. For one thing it's a race to the bottom if Democrats start doing it too, but it's asymmetrically effective if they don't. It hinders or paralyzes government operation, which is bad for almost everyone.
I am already having a bad day, so maybe this reaction is out of proportion, but this kind of thing really makes me despair of finding a way back to a more balanced and sane state of affairs. The unrelenting erosion of norms and the uncertainty it creates is just exhausting.
I look at ESG two ways. One, companies goals are to make more money everything else, everything else, be damned. Any public company has to make money. Two, the Government's 'job' should be to...
I look at ESG two ways.
One, companies goals are to make more money everything else, everything else, be damned. Any public company has to make money.
Two, the Government's 'job' should be to protect its citizens. Hell, even the EPA's 'goal' is to protect the environment for people living in it. Not the environment for its own sake.
So, the government has two options. One, ban shit. Daddy Sam says you can't have it anymore. Regulate everything and control it all.
Two, provide a metric for businesses to say "We'd make less money doing it cheaper." Which ESG kind of is. Give companies the scapegoat of ESG to make better choices.
Why do people hate ESG? Because that's kind of the secondary goal of it. Problem is, shareholders hate it because they make less money now. Citizens hate it because its 'big gubment'.
What does this have to do with New Hampshire? There's almost as many people in the city of Dallas as the entire state of NH. So, obviously a drop in the bucket in the overall culture war - but a win is a win and NH's residents are usually on the individualistic side.
We 'have' to fight the war on woke somewhere because otherwise what's even the point of the Republican party but we can't try it anywhere where an actual industry exists because there's likely people there. The win needs to be cemented to manufacture consent in other places who drink the flavor aid as well.
Ditro to the other conversations. I think it's important to remember that the republicans aren't a monolith. As a generous interpretation, anything that's not straight neo liberal economics is...
Ditro to the other conversations. I think it's important to remember that the republicans aren't a monolith. As a generous interpretation, anything that's not straight neo liberal economics is wrong. That the externalities of past business practices don't really matter, it's trying to enact change that's opposed. Another faction on the right want to engage in brinksmanship and force issues to start drastic choices. They are actively attempting to drive volatility in an attempt to foment... uh, maybe a race war or the rapture? I'm not really sure. Yet another faction is essentially captured by whoever will weild them for their personal profit. It's niave to think industries that will be harmed by ESGs didn't spend cash to break the movement and preserve their profits. (We've seen this behavior in tobacco, oil, sugar, and union contexts)
As the article pointed out; these funds are largely green washing. If these are banned it shouldn't have much effect on making actual change. The changes needed to address the concerns ESDs are supposed to can't be fixed by reallocating your assets. Our personal actions and choices are the only real levers we have at this scale.
I don't have anything super helpful to add, but I enjoyed the dig at Musk.
Archive link
The trend to pass laws that make violations criminal when they would have been civil violations back in saner times is one of the worst things about the unleashed Republican party. For one thing it's a race to the bottom if Democrats start doing it too, but it's asymmetrically effective if they don't. It hinders or paralyzes government operation, which is bad for almost everyone.
I am already having a bad day, so maybe this reaction is out of proportion, but this kind of thing really makes me despair of finding a way back to a more balanced and sane state of affairs. The unrelenting erosion of norms and the uncertainty it creates is just exhausting.
I look at ESG two ways.
One, companies goals are to make more money everything else, everything else, be damned. Any public company has to make money.
Two, the Government's 'job' should be to protect its citizens. Hell, even the EPA's 'goal' is to protect the environment for people living in it. Not the environment for its own sake.
So, the government has two options. One, ban shit. Daddy Sam says you can't have it anymore. Regulate everything and control it all.
Two, provide a metric for businesses to say "We'd make less money doing it cheaper." Which ESG kind of is. Give companies the scapegoat of ESG to make better choices.
Why do people hate ESG? Because that's kind of the secondary goal of it. Problem is, shareholders hate it because they make less money now. Citizens hate it because its 'big gubment'.
What does this have to do with New Hampshire? There's almost as many people in the city of Dallas as the entire state of NH. So, obviously a drop in the bucket in the overall culture war - but a win is a win and NH's residents are usually on the individualistic side.
We 'have' to fight the war on woke somewhere because otherwise what's even the point of the Republican party but we can't try it anywhere where an actual industry exists because there's likely people there. The win needs to be cemented to manufacture consent in other places who drink the flavor aid as well.
Ditro to the other conversations. I think it's important to remember that the republicans aren't a monolith. As a generous interpretation, anything that's not straight neo liberal economics is wrong. That the externalities of past business practices don't really matter, it's trying to enact change that's opposed. Another faction on the right want to engage in brinksmanship and force issues to start drastic choices. They are actively attempting to drive volatility in an attempt to foment... uh, maybe a race war or the rapture? I'm not really sure. Yet another faction is essentially captured by whoever will weild them for their personal profit. It's niave to think industries that will be harmed by ESGs didn't spend cash to break the movement and preserve their profits. (We've seen this behavior in tobacco, oil, sugar, and union contexts)
As the article pointed out; these funds are largely green washing. If these are banned it shouldn't have much effect on making actual change. The changes needed to address the concerns ESDs are supposed to can't be fixed by reallocating your assets. Our personal actions and choices are the only real levers we have at this scale.