<<I don't know if this point was brought up before, but these questions remind
me of the so called "Ethical Stocks", "Ethical Investments", ect...There is
no doubt in my mind that these sorts of questions are silly in that just
about anything can be used by an "unethical business"---Can a motor company,
for example be considered "unethical" if its motor parts were used by
Phillip Morris for example, to make cigarettes? Where do you draw the line?
If a fruit is moldy, you would probably be better to throw the whole fruit
out rather than try to eat around the fungus because chances are that mold
has sent its poision thoughout the flesh already. You can't reform the
moldy peach.
ooooooooo
Kevin Dean
Buffalo, NY>>
Not sure if you meant my questions were silly or questions of ethical investing are silly, but for the record, the reason I asked the question is that I'm interested in the degree to which the apparent cornucopia of "brands" at the supermarket is illusory - that is, if you have 30 "cereal choices", but in fact, all the choices are owned, ultimately, by 2 or 3 companies. I'm interested because in my everyday life, I rather often hear people making the the argument about how great the us/capitalism is - because of this cornucopia, using the supermarket as their prime example. And I think a lot of people think that each brand represents an independent company, and all the brands (as companies) are competing against each other. But I don't think it's so much the case, at least in the food business. Just wanted some real info to back up my intuiitions. I'm not. personally, interested in ethical investing, although it seems to me that the ethical investing campaigns can be used to pressure companies to make changes that might matter to workers and the general public.
les