Here's a statement of the obvious: The opinions expressed here are those of the participants, not those of the Mutual Fund Observer. We cannot vouch for the accuracy or appropriateness of any of it, though we do encourage civility and good humor.
Support MFO
Donate through PayPal
Elizabeth Warren Wants To Be Your New Mutual Fund Manager
Is it "appropriate" for a US Senator to accept bribes from, and do the bidden dirty work for, an organization that believes that ordinary citizens should be subjected to injury or death at the hands of some gun nut with an automatic rapid-fire weapon that has absolutely no use other than to kill people?
I'm from Massachusetts, and have in the past contacted Warren's office about this and that. They're not very responsive, apart from a boilerplate reply. But I've lived in lots of places, and contacts with Congress in ALL those places produces the very same thing. Because actually paying attention to actual people is too much for Senators or Congressmen to handle. The women, too---YES.)
NO ONE needs a frikking AR-15 or AK-40-frikking-7, either. Except perhaps Federal Agencies and law enforcement people. We have friends in AZ. We visited. Every day after work, he carried into the house (and locked away) what is likely a MILITARY version of an AR-15. (Are M-16s still used?) He works for Homeland Security.
I'm in Springfield, too--- home of Smith & Wesson, which no doubt changed the name of its company and ticker due to bad press, because it manufactures guns. My understanding is that S & W makes GUNS, not rifles. Am I mistaken?
I'd hate to live in a nanny state, but that's what we're becoming. Nevertheless, it makes sense to me that those we elect to enact policy ought not to leave their consciences in the car when they go to their offices. There is such a thing as right and wrong. Remember the Marlboro Man? No more. Why allow the PROMOTION of a thing that is so detrimental? Same with these assault rifles and clips that are designed so you don't even have to stop to re-load.
Larry Fink was on tv one time, and I watched. Among a bunch of other Mighty Capitalists on a panel, when the topic came up, he asserted that he is a liberal Democrat. So Warren's letter will be given some attention, methinks.
Investors are human first, before they invest. Seems to me, that's what we all have in common, and it ought to be our collective strongest bond with each other. Should investors put their consciences on "Hold" when they decide about investing choices? On the other hand, if someone has chosen to simply become a whore for Big Green Money, then there's not much you can tell them, eh?
That’s odd...nowhere in the original post does Senator Warren dictate what security could or should be purchased. Maybe I missed it.
You missed nothing, and trolling and insulting a smart and capable and hardworking (and somewhat obnoxious) public servant is the fun game here, esp when female
and now bartab has decided to pile on, yay. EW can do as she wishes; it's fine by me compared with her corrupt, evil, and/or stupid colleagues. No one has to like her.
First, I call horse pucky on this libertarian myth that corporations have always existed solely to make profits for shareholders and not for any other purpose such as the public good. There has been a notion of corporations existing for the public good embedded in the idea of a corporation in the U.S. from the beginning and that notion has only recently been perverted to existing solely for the purposes of making money: https://researchgate.net/publication/276883931_Corporate_Social_Responsibility_Practice_from_1800-1914_Past_Initiatives_and_Current_Debates
First, I call horse pucky on this libertarian myth that corporations have always existed solely to make profits for shareholders and not for any other purpose such as the public good. There has been a notion of corporations existing for the public good embedded in the idea of a corporation in the U.S. from the beginning and that notion has only recently been perverted to existing solely for the purposes of making money: ...
I think the change really happened when the MBA got to be so popular. It's all about the money now. Very few folks high up in businesses really care about anything besides the dollars (company founders excepted). Otherwise you wouldn't see execs shifting companies from baby goods to computer systems, airplanes to cars, etc. They don't really care about the products as much as the profits.
I've refrained from jumping into this thread, but had a few minutes to kill this morning.
Funds own what they own. I'm angry that Comcast jacks up my bills every year, but while I boycott them as a TV customer I won't dump the funds I own which include Comcast in their holdings.
As to the underlying issue:
First off, any political discussion that invokes ad hominem attacks on the subjects immediately goes into my 'ignore' category. (so i really should be ignoring this thread, and probably won't be adding much to the discussion after this.)
Second, since I was a kid in the '80s, I been around and owned guns and know how to use them responsibly, and people all over do so as citizens and in defense of our nation (police or military.) Owning guns for recreation is fine -- but if you say you need an AR-15 for hog hunting: if you don't hit the beast by the second shot, you're not only NOT going to get him, but also scare off anything else in the vicinity.
Nobody needs to pack a gun to go grocery shopping or pick up dry cleaning - or to sling an automatic rifle over their shoulder to show the world "look at me, I'm strong because I have a big ... gun" when going out to Friday dinner. And yes I have been in some very seedy parts of American cities and while perhaps feeling a tad on-edge at times, I never felt threatened.
If the government wanted to come confiscate my guns or assume martial law as so many of the far-right nutters/preppers belive (including what the NRA spokespeople imply *can* happen), they're not going to show up with a posse or send a pair of goons to every house in the neighborhood -- they're going to roll tanks down my street and up my driveway, drone me from above, enage in cyber-something, or something else far outside my ability to control. So in 2018 I am not afraid of my government assuming physical martial law on me ... meaning, if I was afraid of that, I would not be joining the NRA defending its quaint second amendment ammosexual fetish but rather would be lobbying Congress to let me buy bazookas, armed drones, a fully stocked aircraft carrier, and/or trying to join the "Where's My Personal A-Bomb-To-Defend-Myself-From-Uncle-Sam Coalition" instead.
And putting more guns in schools, or turning schools into fortified institutions resembling prisions? Don't even get me started on espousing my views on this idiotic reaction to the problem.
Until elected officials realize that this isn't 1790, nothing's going to change. While this time may be different due to the sustained outreach, energy and mobilization of our youth and future voters, I'm sadly not holding my breath. And if businesses want to show their views on the issue, so be it.
Okay, that went on longer than I thought. Off to work I go now.
Here is an excerpt from the above-linked article in the Atlantic on the AR-15:
As I opened the CT scan last week to read the next case, I was baffled. The history simply read “gunshot wound.” I have been a radiologist in one of the busiest trauma centers in the United States for 13 years, and have diagnosed thousands of handgun injuries to the brain, lung, liver, spleen, bowel, and other vital organs. I thought that I knew all that I needed to know about gunshot wounds, but the specific pattern of injury on my computer screen was one that I had seen only once before.
In a typical handgun injury, which I diagnose almost daily, a bullet leaves a laceration through an organ such as the liver. To a radiologist, it appears as a linear, thin, gray bullet track through the organ. There may be bleeding and some bullet fragments.
I was looking at a CT scan of one of the mass-shooting victims from Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School, who had been brought to the trauma center during my call shift. The organ looked like an overripe melon smashed by a sledgehammer, and was bleeding extensively. How could a gunshot wound have caused this much damage?
The reaction in the emergency room was the same. One of the trauma surgeons opened a young victim in the operating room, and found only shreds of the organ that had been hit by a bullet from an AR-15, a semiautomatic rifle that delivers a devastatingly lethal, high-velocity bullet to the victim. Nothing was left to repair—and utterly, devastatingly, nothing could be done to fix the problem. The injury was fatal.
A year ago, when a gunman opened fire at the Fort Lauderdale airport with a 9 mm semiautomatic handgun, hitting 11 people in 90 seconds, I was also on call. It was not until I had diagnosed the third of the six victims who were transported to the trauma center that I realized something out of the ordinary must have happened. The gunshot wounds were the same low-velocity handgun injuries that I diagnose every day; only their rapid succession set them apart. And all six of the victims who arrived at the hospital that day survived.
Routine handgun injuries leave entry and exit wounds and linear tracks through the victim’s body that are roughly the size of the bullet. If the bullet does not directly hit something crucial like the heart or the aorta, and the victim does not bleed to death before being transported to our care at the trauma center, chances are that we can save him. The bullets fired by an AR-15 are different: They travel at a higher velocity and are far more lethal than routine bullets fired from a handgun. The damage they cause is a function of the energy they impart as they pass through the body. A typical AR-15 bullet leaves the barrel traveling almost three times faster than—and imparting more than three times the energy of—a typical 9mm bullet from a handgun. An AR-15 rifle outfitted with a magazine with 50 rounds allows many more lethal bullets to be delivered quickly without reloading.
I have seen a handful of AR-15 injuries in my career. Years ago I saw one from a man shot in the back by a SWAT team. The injury along the path of the bullet from an AR-15 is vastly different from a low-velocity handgun injury. The bullet from an AR-15 passes through the body like a cigarette boat traveling at maximum speed through a tiny canal. The tissue next to the bullet is elastic—moving away from the bullet like waves of water displaced by the boat—and then returns and settles back. This process is called cavitation; it leaves the displaced tissue damaged or killed. The high-velocity bullet causes a swath of tissue damage that extends several inches from its path. It does not have to actually hit an artery to damage it and cause catastrophic bleeding. Exit wounds can be the size of an orange.
With an AR-15, the shooter does not have to be particularly accurate. The victim does not have to be unlucky. If a victim takes a direct hit to the liver from an AR-15, the damage is far graver than that of a simple handgun-shot injury. Handgun injuries to the liver are generally survivable unless the bullet hits the main blood supply to the liver. An AR-15 bullet wound to the middle of the liver would cause so much bleeding that the patient would likely never make it to the trauma center to receive our care.
Elizabeth Warren Wants To Be Your New Mutual Fund Manager
We've lost sight of the original misdirection and sleight-of-hand that @Maurice employed in his original post. From his link, here's the appalling suggestion from Elizabeth Warren:
"By leveraging the holdings that BlackRock manages in gunmakers like the American Outdoor Brands Corporation, which builds the AR-15 semi-automatic rifle that former student Nikolas Cruz used to kill 17 people at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Broward County, Fla., Fink can demonstrate his own commitment to the standard he set, the Massachusetts Democrat wrote in a letter."
This sort of garbage is unfortunately completely normal for Maurice and his ilk. Let's simply distort Ms Warren's position beyond all reasonable recognition, and hope that nobody notices.
"He cited an incident that had occurred two years earlier, in which a gunman shot and killed three people in a Seattle shipyard. “The next day, the papers reported that, within minutes of the shooting, the Seattle School District had been able to lock down every school within a two-mile radius of the shootings,” Wales said. “My first thought was Well, good for the school district for doing a fine job protecting our kids. But wait a minute. Is this Kosovo, Bosnia, Beirut, Rwanda—that we have to lock down our schools to protect our children?”
The man quoted in this article, Tom Wales, a US Attorney who advocated gun control, was shot and killed in October, 2001. His unsolved murder is the subject of a recent New Yorker article by Jeffrey Toobin. Linked in that article is another piece Toobin wrote in 2007 about the murder and from which I copied the above quotation. For ages now, reasonable people have despaired at the nuttiness of official reactions to the shooting down of our citizens. It does indeed appear that we are competing with some of the most dangerous places on the planet, such as Yemen these days. Have we made any progress?
A seemingly thoughtful response, but your reading comprehension is subpar at best, and your kneejerkness to go troll and go loony rhetorically vitiates any appearance of thoughtfulness.
>> ... 40,000 people are killed in the U S A in automobile accidents. Where is that outrage? Why aren't our Representatives working to outlaw automobiles? Why aren't they writing letters to money managers to divest in any company that is involved in the manufacture of automobiles? >> I could come up with political correctness scenarios
As if that is what this is about, and as if those responses are offered seriously. Why so much writing effort and care on your part when you're not serious and yet again seem incapable of being genuinely serious? The very definition of a troll.
And is Sen Warren's solution of divesting the right one?
Nowhere in Warren's letter to BlackRock did she recommend divestment. She is talking about engagement as one of the largest shareholders and owners of gun securities, which BlackRock's Fink claims he will do anyway. Also, there is a real question now from a corporate governance perspective whether manufacturing AR-15s and other assault rifles is good for gunmakers' businesses. There is increasing legal liability and potential permanent damage to their brand from making those specific kinds of weapons. So why not engage with the gun manufacturers? At least if you're going to attack her position, get it right before doing so.
Elizabeth Warren Operah is next president/ vp duo 2020!
Learn how to spell Oprah. Crazier things have happen, ala 2016.
It's also good if we only have one healthcare system so everyone is happy and every one is covered.
You said something smart! Was that a slip?
Probably best for the country then they can manage our money, raise our taxes.
Isn't that better than lower taxes on rich corporations and increased spending, ala Trump? Talk about deficits - oh wait, not until the next election when a Democrat is elected.
let more people in with open border in this country to live free
, hmm, I'm going out on a limb here and guessing you were an immigrant, correct? Now its time to close the borders?
Probably best to buy lots of knives and learn judo too since guns will be limited probably best to learn new hands-hands combat
. Great idea. Maybe kids and the rest of us might be safer ala Australia, Japan and just about everyother democratic society?. Won't happen, good thought though.
Comments
Regards,
Ted
https://www.google.com/search?q=pocahontas+picture&tbm=isch&source=iu&ictx=1&fir=ZXOss2UAOcSUBM%3A%2CMHIaYF_me7MPRM%2C_&usg=__LsYkxoYva8qFFJaWkNS60Ci0mGs=&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjL3KeEjcfZAhUKvFMKHfYsD_UQ9QEIVDAB#imgrc=ZXOss2UAOcSUBM:
Afraid to mention the actual subject, Maurice?
NO ONE needs a frikking AR-15 or AK-40-frikking-7, either. Except perhaps Federal Agencies and law enforcement people. We have friends in AZ. We visited. Every day after work, he carried into the house (and locked away) what is likely a MILITARY version of an AR-15. (Are M-16s still used?) He works for Homeland Security.
I'm in Springfield, too--- home of Smith & Wesson, which no doubt changed the name of its company and ticker due to bad press, because it manufactures guns. My understanding is that S & W makes GUNS, not rifles. Am I mistaken?
I'd hate to live in a nanny state, but that's what we're becoming. Nevertheless, it makes sense to me that those we elect to enact policy ought not to leave their consciences in the car when they go to their offices. There is such a thing as right and wrong. Remember the Marlboro Man? No more. Why allow the PROMOTION of a thing that is so detrimental? Same with these assault rifles and clips that are designed so you don't even have to stop to re-load.
Larry Fink was on tv one time, and I watched. Among a bunch of other Mighty Capitalists on a panel, when the topic came up, he asserted that he is a liberal Democrat. So Warren's letter will be given some attention, methinks.
Investors are human first, before they invest. Seems to me, that's what we all have in common, and it ought to be our collective strongest bond with each other. Should investors put their consciences on "Hold" when they decide about investing choices? On the other hand, if someone has chosen to simply become a whore for Big Green Money, then there's not much you can tell them, eh?
and now bartab has decided to pile on, yay. EW can do as she wishes; it's fine by me compared with her corrupt, evil, and/or stupid colleagues. No one has to like her.
https://researchgate.net/publication/276883931_Corporate_Social_Responsibility_Practice_from_1800-1914_Past_Initiatives_and_Current_Debates
https://law.georgetown.edu/academics/law-journals/gjlpp/upload/zs800112000115.PDF
Second, when is enough enough regarding products that are truly harmful to the functioning of a society. How harmful? This harmful:
https://theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2018/02/what-i-saw-treating-the-victims-from-parkland-should-change-the-debate-on-guns/553937/
The founders wanted a functioning well trained militia in communities when they wrote the Second Amendment, not lone gunmen idiots with AR-15s in their basements.
Funds own what they own. I'm angry that Comcast jacks up my bills every year, but while I boycott them as a TV customer I won't dump the funds I own which include Comcast in their holdings.
As to the underlying issue:
First off, any political discussion that invokes ad hominem attacks on the subjects immediately goes into my 'ignore' category. (so i really should be ignoring this thread, and probably won't be adding much to the discussion after this.)
Second, since I was a kid in the '80s, I been around and owned guns and know how to use them responsibly, and people all over do so as citizens and in defense of our nation (police or military.) Owning guns for recreation is fine -- but if you say you need an AR-15 for hog hunting: if you don't hit the beast by the second shot, you're not only NOT going to get him, but also scare off anything else in the vicinity.
Nobody needs to pack a gun to go grocery shopping or pick up dry cleaning - or to sling an automatic rifle over their shoulder to show the world "look at me, I'm strong because I have a big ... gun" when going out to Friday dinner. And yes I have been in some very seedy parts of American cities and while perhaps feeling a tad on-edge at times, I never felt threatened.
Good intentions by citizens do not make up for trained career law enforcement personnel. While it may work sometimes by luck, even cops have problems, and the risk of innocent bystanders getting hit is too high otherwise. While there are some successes in police active shooter responses, by contrast, NYPD, one of our best LEOs, reportedly only has a 34% accuracy in active shooter situations. (https://www.cbsnews.com/news/empire-state-building-shooting-sparks-questions-about-nypd-shot-accuracy/) Plus some people think that a gun is the answer to any criminal act, misdemeanor, misunderstanding, or felony. (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2015/10/08/woman-with-concealed-gun-permit-shoots-at-fleeing-shoplifter-could-face-charges/) Good intentions? Sure. But legal? Or helpful to reassure the non-NRA-believing public? Hardly.
If the government wanted to come confiscate my guns or assume martial law as so many of the far-right nutters/preppers belive (including what the NRA spokespeople imply *can* happen), they're not going to show up with a posse or send a pair of goons to every house in the neighborhood -- they're going to roll tanks down my street and up my driveway, drone me from above, enage in cyber-something, or something else far outside my ability to control. So in 2018 I am not afraid of my government assuming physical martial law on me ... meaning, if I was afraid of that, I would not be joining the NRA defending its quaint second amendment ammosexual fetish but rather would be lobbying Congress to let me buy bazookas, armed drones, a fully stocked aircraft carrier, and/or trying to join the "Where's My Personal A-Bomb-To-Defend-Myself-From-Uncle-Sam Coalition" instead.
And putting more guns in schools, or turning schools into fortified institutions resembling prisions? Don't even get me started on espousing my views on this idiotic reaction to the problem.
Until elected officials realize that this isn't 1790, nothing's going to change. While this time may be different due to the sustained outreach, energy and mobilization of our youth and future voters, I'm sadly not holding my breath. And if businesses want to show their views on the issue, so be it.
Okay, that went on longer than I thought. Off to work I go now.
Regards- OJ
We've lost sight of the original misdirection and sleight-of-hand that @Maurice employed in his original post. From his link, here's the appalling suggestion from Elizabeth Warren:
"By leveraging the holdings that BlackRock manages in gunmakers like the American Outdoor Brands Corporation, which builds the AR-15 semi-automatic rifle that former student Nikolas Cruz used to kill 17 people at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Broward County, Fla., Fink can demonstrate his own commitment to the standard he set, the Massachusetts Democrat wrote in a letter."
This sort of garbage is unfortunately completely normal for Maurice and his ilk. Let's simply distort Ms Warren's position beyond all reasonable recognition, and hope that nobody notices.
The man quoted in this article, Tom Wales, a US Attorney who advocated gun control, was shot and killed in October, 2001. His unsolved murder is the subject of a recent New Yorker article by Jeffrey Toobin. Linked in that article is another piece Toobin wrote in 2007 about the murder and from which I copied the above quotation. For ages now, reasonable people have despaired at the nuttiness of official reactions to the shooting down of our citizens. It does indeed appear that we are competing with some of the most dangerous places on the planet, such as Yemen these days. Have we made any progress?
Here's the link: https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2007/08/06/an-unsolved-killing
>> ... 40,000 people are killed in the U S A in automobile accidents. Where is that outrage? Why aren't our Representatives working to outlaw automobiles? Why aren't they writing letters to money managers to divest in any company that is involved in the manufacture of automobiles?
>> I could come up with political correctness scenarios
As if that is what this is about, and as if those responses are offered seriously.
Why so much writing effort and care on your part when you're not serious and yet again seem incapable of being genuinely serious? The very definition of a troll.