Citizen Blasts Ethical Investments

The editorial says: "we may not like some of the labour practices in developing countries, but if it wasn't for companies building factories there and paying a decent wage by those countries' standards, many people would have no work at all. What's unethical about that?"

Ahhh yes... the "white man's burden." We're actually helping those poor people in the "developing world" by giving them good decent jobs in sweat shops where labour activists are imprisoned, tortured and executed (just read Amnesty's annual reports) and no environmental or health regulations get in the way of us making a good profit on our blessed pension funds. Those ungrateful peasants! Don't they want to "develop" into good moral citizens like us? If only they worked harder, they'd be the editors of major newspapers instead of the lowly wage slaves that they are. No, correct that, they'd OWN the damned papers!

This raises an interesting hypothetical scenario. Wouldn't it be cool if the Ottawa Citizen editorial crew magically switched jobs with those oh-so-lucky, dollar-a-day factory workers who were having such a hard time "developing"?

If horses could fly, I'd buy the paper just to read the editorials!

Hmmm... now, I doubt that these Citizen editors have ever even graced the entrance of such a factory, let alone worked in one, but I think they slipped up. They seemed to imply (there's just a whisper of an implication there) that some factories DON'T pay "a decent wage by those countries' standards." So, one wonders whether those gentlefolk sweating away pushing pencils around the Citizen's plush boardroom perhaps think that there ought to be an ethical line drawn between those factories that DO pay up to those standards, and those that don't. We can only hope.

And that's really the rub, isn't it? We all have to draw the line somewhere between what we ARE we willing to be complicit in, and what we will NOT support. If chattel slavery was legal, would you buy a slave (or shares in a company that bought and sold such property)? The Citizen folks would! And so would those able investors whose hands are dug deep into our CPP pension pockets. Hey it's legal! Let's make some money!

My greatest hope in seeing this diabolical disconnect with morality, is that it will cause some debate on where the line should be drawn. The Citizen's editors draw their line in drifting sands of the investment market by saying that whatever is LEGAL is fair game. But they don't dig beneath the surface to see, for example, if there are any skeletons from past wars buried there in those far away sandy deserts. They don't consider the fact that international crimes against peace, or crimes against humanity or war crimes have been committed by U.S. military forces and that our mandatory CPP investments, in the world's biggest weapons manufacturers, helped get the job done. Bravo, immorality wins the war, and it's good for our bottom line too!

The Citizen editorial implies that the CPP invests only in Canadian companies that supply only OUR armed forces, for only OUR defence. In reality, the CPP portfolio has many of the world's top weapons makers, including companies making everything from weapons of mass destruction right on down to illegal, little weapons called antipersonnel landmines.

Everyone has to draw the line somewhere. For one group of investors, ethics are completely ignored and the line gets drawn between what's legal and what's not. A second group doesn't want to be complicit in unethical corporations. But the trouble is, for the second group, when it comes to our pensions, someone else is drawing that line FOR us. And, what's worse the folks over at the CPP Investment Board have about as much concern for ethical and moral issues (and maybe even less) than the folks who bring us our daily news.

This episode with the Citizen, confirms for me why my repeated emails to hundreds of "mainstream" radio, TV, magazine and newspaper corporations got ZERO coverage on the issue of Canada Pebnsion Plan investments in war.

So, I say, vote with your pocket book! And, you can start by never paying for the corporate media ever again! Why do people pay for that rightwing stuff anyway? Isn't there enough alternative media now available online that we don't need to subscribe to a heartless paper like the Citizen, let alone ever even buy one copy. I never buy the paper (well unless I'm in it), and believe me, that ain't often. (Hmmm... I guess it ain't likely to happen any more frequently now!)

With three cheers for ethical investments,

yours sincerely,
Richard Sanders
http://coat.openconcept.ca

P.S. I'd like to suggest that you don't waste your time sending the Citizen a letter on this matter. (You can disregard me of course, people usually do.) Rather, I suggest spending that time to encourage a friend not to consume the corporate media. We know now that the Citizen is ethically dead. May it rest in peace! (Well, if you checked for a pulse you wouldn't find one in the Citizen's ethics department, it don't even got no such department!)

Okay. So, sit down, take yourself an antacid and read this here editorial from today's Ottawa Citizen (Thursday, February 12, 2004). If it wasn't so sick, it would belong on the funny pages:

[reprinted for fair use only]

The Ethics of Investing

Stock picking according to politically correct criteria is an almost guaranteed formula for losing money. That's why any Canadian who has already retired and all those who expect to retire one day should dismiss as socialist silliness an NDP idea to force the Canada Pension Plan to invest in "ethical" industries.

After a couple of dismal years, the CPP is enjoying some growth because of increased premiums and a rising stock market. The plan's consolidated portfolio has about $65 billion in assets and is predicted to hit $160 billion in a decade. All that money has the New Democrats drooling at the do-good uses to which it could be put.

Last week, New Democrat MP Pat Martin tabled a motion in the House of Commons calling for the CPP to be "prohibited from investing in companies and enterprises that manufacture and trade in military arms and weapons, have records of poor environmental and labour practices or whose conduct and practices are contrary to Canadian values." The motion is unlikely to come to a vote in Parliament, but NDP leader Jack Layton says the idea will be part of his party's election platform.

Consider the implications of what Mr. Layton and his colleagues propose. First, they effectively ignore the CPP investment board's mandate "to invest in the best interests" of all contributors and beneficiaries, not just those with claims to a social conscience. CPP contributions are expected to exceed benefits until 2021, after which a portion of the investment income will be needed to pay the benefits of a retiring baby boom generation. Obviously, the better the investment returns now, the easier it will be to pay those benefits without imposing a larger employment tax burden on the workforce. The NDP plan would jeopardize this by forcing investments in ethical funds that have traditionally underperformed more diverse funds.

Secondly, what "values" do the NDP think are un-Canadian? Our armed forces need everything from uniforms to bullets to airplanes. All of this materiel comes from "arms suppliers," but there is nothing unethical about investing in companies that serve the defence of the country.

Furthermore, we may not like some of the labour practices in developing countries, but if it wasn't for companies building factories there and paying a decent wage by those countries' standards, many people would have no work at all. What's unethical about that?

Many people own stocks in oil companies, breweries and tobacco manufacturers, all of which sell legal products, yet the NDP appears to be suggesting that anyone who invests in these industries -- let alone works for them (including union members who are the NDP's traditional base of support) -- is unethical.

If individuals choose to invest their money in ethical funds, that is their right. But the Canada Pension Plan is a mandatory program into which all workers must pay. Those who manage CPP premiums have a fiduciary responsibility to invest the money in a way that protects the principal and provides a decent rate of return. Limiting CPP investments to "ethical" companies might make Mr. Layton and his supporters feel better, but it could seriously harm the pension needs of millions of Canadians. That is unethical.

Note: http://coat.openconcept.ca