Socially Responsible Investing

  • Thread starter Thread starter Shakuhachi
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
It would be great if such things were more widely available. If there’s a massive and growing Islamic financing sector, why not Christian?
 
Last edited:
Historically Christians left finances to the Jews lol
 
eh. I may put >100 dollars into Bitcoin and see what happens…
 
Kiva.org if you have funds laying around and care about the “helpfulness of the output”

If you want to make money, you will need something that requires recipients (of your money) interest.

Not interested in interest? Savings Bonds

Bitcoin is the most dangerous as it is a mix between commodity and “currency” with the opposite guarantee from Kiva in many cases
 
Last edited:
Because we don’t all agree on what should and shouldn’t be included in these funds.
 
That’s a good point.
Like weapons. Sometimes they are needed. What about hormonal pills? It’s not always about contraception but there are medical uses. The fossil fuels industry? The chemicals industry?
Still, it would be nice that Christian financing was more available. They could outline guidelines on what they won’t invest in. IMHO, even if it’s not 100% perfect, 75% still beats 30%.
 
That’s a good point.

Like weapons. Sometimes they are needed.
Bingo. That’s why i avoid these funds like a plague. They are not really guided by any proper moral principles, just a fashion about what’s good and bad at the moment. Most the anti-weapons onces are pro-abortion anyway. Here’s a tip for you, just buy every share on the S&P500 except the airlines. In the long-run you’ll beat the market!
 
That is why we read the prospectus.
 
Last edited:
Check out the “Ready to Go” folios available from Folio Investing. About 250 of them.
 
Illogical to invest based on a companies ethics. invest in whatever will make you the most money safely; index funds.

However, what you purchase does matter. Ever heard of voting with your dollars, if you want to change the corporate world pay attention to what products and services you buy not what portfolios you invest in.
 
Not necessarily.

My point of view:

If you avoid certain companies as an investment you will bid down their stock price. That makes it more expensive for them to issue new stock and hence deters them from expanding their business.
 
I would avoid stocks right now like the plague. The fed will be hiking rates soon to ward off inflation from all these tax cuts. Companies are already increasing bonuses, which will cause some inflation.

In an inefficient market, it would be time to invest in metals. Also, short bonds. For quick money, one would go short on a treasury bond option contracts.
 
Ave Maria funds are excellent. In particular the dividend reinvestment fund.
 
Jim Cramer just said rates are so low we can afford some hikes because business is so good.
 
I don’t generally care much for Jim Cramer, but I agree with him on this.

For eight years the Federal Reserve deliberately held down interest rates to force the stock market up to create a false illusion of prosperity. People who depended on Certificates of Deposit for their interest to live on, had to “play” the stock market. And THAT “artificially” pushed the stock market up and made it look like the economy was growing. BUT it was pure illusion.

The rising stock market gave the illusion of prosperity even though economic growth was below 2% and so many people were out of the labor force and so many people were on disability and on food stamps.

With the current focus on deregulation and less government bureaucracy, we are getting 3% ++ actual economic growth AND the reduction in tax rates and reduction in tax complexity is also improving labor productivity and higher economic growth.
 
Last edited:

With Thursday’s final revision of fourth-quarter GDP growth to 2.1 percent from its previous 1.9 percent level, President Obama is the only president since Herbert Hoover to not have guided the US economy to 3 percent growth in any year he was in office.

The US economy grew 1.6 percent in 2016 from the previous years, according to the Commerce Department, which tracks GDP.

Obama’s best year, as far as growing the economy, was 2015 when it grew 2.6 percent from 2014 — after growing 2.4 percent that year from 2013.

The recovering economy — and steady job growth — gave Obama lots of momentum, but the economy sputtered again last year, Commerce reported Thursday.

The government attributed the upward revision in fourth quarter GDP to higher than expected consumer spending in the October-December period.

But even with the upward revision, the US economy was in no danger of achieving 3 percent or better growth last year.
 
Last edited:
excerpt from a previous post on tourism:

Since World War II, the average annual GDP growth rate has averaged 2.9 percent. The worst year recorded in the post-WWII era was 1947, when GDP declined to -11.6 percent. From 1947 to present, average annual GDP growth has been 3.2 percent. However, it’s important to note that not all presidents contributed their, shall we say, “fair share.”

This is where Obama’s economy comes in to play. He ranks dead last for the worst economy amongst every president post-WWII. LBJ topped the chart, overseeing annual GDP growth as high as 5.3 percent, whereas Obama’s low was 1.5 percent. To put that into perspective, here’s the presidential ranking according to the Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA):

Johnson 5.3 percent, Kennedy 4.3 percent, Clinton 3.9 percent, Reagan 3.5 percent, Carter 3.3 percent, Eisenhower 3.0 percent, (post-WWII average of 2.9 percent) Nixon 2.8 percent, Ford 2.6 percent, Bush 41 2.3 percent, Bush 43 2.1 percent, Truman 1.7 percent, Obama 1.5 percent.
 
In 2014, Obama said the new normal is below 2%.


The good times may be over for good.

June 12, 2014

In a speech to the Economic Club of New York yesterday, Obama’s US Treasury Secretary Jack Lew said the US GDP growth rate, adjusted for inflation, is now projected to run a little above 2% a year. That would be a significant downshift from the 3.4% average growth rate from the end of World War II until 2007.

Look at it this way: If the US economy grows at its traditional rate between now and 2040, it would double in size to $37 trillion vs. just 50% growth to $27 trillion at the slower pace. And remember, that growth gap — $10 trillion in 2040 – is cumulative. It would persist year after year and get larger as time passes.

So what’s wrong? An excellent New York Times piece today by reporter Binyamin Appelbaum notes that while economist accept slower growth is partly the result of long-term trends, they also think the aftermath of the Great Recession and the Not-So-Great Recovery are playing a role. Among the former factors, you have (a) the demographically-driven decline in labor force participation and (b) an apparent productivity slowdown starting in the mid-2000s as the pace of technological innovation and diffusion has slowed.

Among the latter factors, you have causes that will seem more or less explanatory, depending on political leanings. Conservatives will like the paper, “Quantifying the Lasting Harm to the U.S. Economy from the Financial Crisis,” by Stanford University economist Robert Hall. He points to the growth in disability and food-stamp programs as hurting labor-force participation. Liberals, on the other hand, will see much wisdom in “A Model of Secular Stagnation” by Gauti Eggertsson and Neil Mehrotra, which argues post recession deleveraging and an increase in inequality “can lead a permanent (or very persistent) slump.”

In his [2014] speech, Lew said, “that many today wonder whether something that has always been true in our past will be true in our future.” (Indeed, the 2013 Obama budget declared, “In the 21st Century, real GDP growth in the United States is likely to be permanently slower than it was in earlier eras … .”) Signs abound that the answer to that question is, “No, it won’t.” And while Washington should debate appropriate policy responses, it first needs to accept the reality of trends, both old and recent, that are fundamentally making America’s pursuit of happiness more difficult.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top