Cavemanus, To answer your question about Haliburton: They have evil status because the
war in Iraq is truly for their benifit. Dick Cheney steped down as CEO of HAL while he
was running for the Whitehouse with Bush. Haliburton gave him a big thanks in the form of
$32,000,000 just before he became our VP, a position which affects every National and
International energy policy our country has. As soon as we invaded Iraq our first order
of business was not to secure Baghdad but to secure the 5 major oil pipelines running into
the gulf. Since the invasion EVERY major contract in iraq has gone to Hal. They even got
the contract to establish temporary infrustructure and food services for our troops. Even
in food service they have exploited the American tax payer by charging our troops grossly
inflated prices for snack foods. One such example is that they were caught charging $26
per six-pack of soda. There's much more but I need to get off my soapbox here.

Buy Matel they had the lead in children's toys that's pretty bad. Buy PGE this electric
company screws it's customers over. They have a baseline charge in California for energy
and after you pass that baseline which is usually have than the average a normal house
hold uses a month the price goes up to 120% and it's a tier system. They are only making
households pay this businesses and corporations get a flat rate. This should make them
money but they don't care about there customers they are taking advantage of them because
they can this is costing each house hold up to 100 dollars a month. Nuclear enegy is the
only good energy for the environment by the way. Buy PGE cause the are screwing the
people of california over.

I agree with Sophia regarding cigarettes stocks. Alcohol can actually be good for your
body (one glass of red wine per day keeps the doctor away).. This said, if you really
drink 1 glass a day it may be considered as alcoholism as it becomes more of a need..
Cigarettes...?? Well, try to smoke 1 cigarette a day and you'll quickly move to like half
a pack. Plus it stinks and affects people around those who smoke... Ever kissed a girl who
was a heavy smoker? :)
So I guess I'd pick MO as one of the list, probably WMT as well (they sell firearms
between the canned food and the veggies alleys LOL) and NWS for brainwashing and addictive
TV series

Big Pops - you make perfect cents...there are so many aspects to consider in being a
'moral' company that it does get ridiculous. I just heard a news report that TM is
lobbying against the current legislation in Congress to raise CAFE standard to 35 mpg by
2015. Seems their Tundra pick up at a puny 14 mpg, wouldn't be able to make it to that
level by then! Huh? Gimme a break.

But when it comes to the cigarette pushers, I just can't do it no matter how much I try to
convince myself that it might as well be me taking the financial gains as the next guy.
They sell an addictive product that kills people and which has no redeeming virtues
whatever. A shot of Jack Daniels at least is good for the heart and can ease stress...a
cigarette raises blood pressure, constricts blood vessels and introduces dozens of toxins
to the body.

Last edited on: 10-08-2007 09:09 pm

The problem with so-called "socially responsible" or "morally responsible" investments is
that is a relative term. There are very few things that we can decide are "socially
responsible."

I was watching some show on CNBC where someone was touting some Chinese company are
socially responsible because of the product they made, but there was no mention of how
they treated their employees.

While individuals are certainly free to do what they want with their money and can and
should invest where they believe it will do the most good, I can assure you that my picks
would probably not agree with others.


Just my unenlightened 2 cents.

I had a 7 deadly sins portfolio that included Smith&Wesson (wrath) and News Corp (pride).

Yeah, but SBUX coffee tastes like crap. I'd almost rather drink instant coffee.

Cavem - not the point of this thread. However, it is not a "losing" proposition to invest
in socially responsible companies, but it is a lot more work. There are highly successful
mutual funds that invest this way. But again, a list of such morally
irresponsible/responsible companies can be useful however people want to use them.

Agree Longterm- I consider one aspect of being morally responsible is the company that
provides positive incentive for its employees and protects their health and well-being. It
can prove to be an economically sound approach. Hence SBUX is a good company. Not to
mention, fortunately, that coffee is turning out to have health benefits.

I never agreed with the "socially responsible" investing theme. Unless its an IPO or a
microcap, buying stock in the market only indirectly benefits the company purchased at
best. (demand driving up treasury stock price). Not buying a stock for whatever reason
certainly won't affect a company at all. Even if everyone agreed never to buy MO stock
again, and the stock became a falling knife -- the company would still be selling, making
a profit, etc. Of course it might affect all the executives and their stock options, but
they would just dream up another way to get compensation. It seems to me that you
accomplish nothing more than an ineffectual statement that can cost you money. You'd do
more good taking your profits and donating the proceeds to a worthy cause.

Aetna (AET) screwed me when I had them. I think they were in that Michael Moore movie too.