Are We Doing Any Good?

[Parsad]

What do you think he is now going to do with Dhandho? 

 

I'm pretty sure it's going to lead to pay increases for my "staff".

 

LOL!  Why...do you let them see your account statements?  If so, that's your fault!  Cheers!

[Packer16]

I think the one mentioned that has the biggest impact is the giving perspective.  This is where I see most of the tangible benefits of what are doing going to take place.  Being a "larger" consumer can help but in my mind that can also be a waste of resources.  The most direct way investments help is providing the time and money to make a difference in someone elses life.  You don't have to have money to this, you can invest your time (which is also important).  It allows you more time to serve others with your time and money in the way you feel led.  I think the "guilt" feeling some mention is there for reason.  Our minds are telling us we have to do something productive with the assets we have been given stewardship over and not store them in a barn or bury them in the ground (in my mind spending them on goods and services we don't need or want to satisfy some need to be accepted).  Just my 2 cents.

 

Packer 

[Palantir]

I believe I am the one who brought up the taxi drivers analogy. I did not mean that taxi drivers don't add value, but merely that we do not add value any more than (for example) them.

[rkbabang]

I believe I am the one who brought up the taxi drivers analogy. I did not mean that taxi drivers don't add value, but merely that we do not add value any more than (for example) them.

 

No one is saying profitable investors are heroes.  Just that they do what they do and in some small way it is a net positive.

 

There are 7+ billion people on the planet, how much value do you expect that you can personally add over and above everyone else?  We all can't be outliers.

 

 

[Gamecock-YT]

 

Assuming that you are a small time manager of your own portfolio, and so you are always a minority shareholder, do you think the time you spend (possibly full time) doing investments is doing any good for society, assuming you make a decent return.

 

Let's restrict the investments to long stocks, so no shorting, options , etc etc......

 

I think we are but wonder your thoughts..... maybe this could be a poll!?

thanks

 

 

Perhaps I'm just naive, but who cares.

[yadayada]

Isn't the stock market an exit place for alot of earlier investors in for example private businesses?

 

Those businesses would have a harder time getting capital if there wasn't the option of cashing out on the public market, and we provide liquidity in those markets.

[rkbabang]

Someone mentioned poisoning people in the third world for fun and profit, but in a functioning market, devoid of government protectionism, and with a functioning tort system, such things would be far from profitable.  Now for those educated in government schools who think that a tort system couldn't function without political authority and the aggressive government violence that it implies, that is too complicated a subject to get into on a message board.  Whole books have been written on it and I'd be happy to give you the info you need to get started if it is a subject you are interested in.

 

I'd be interested in any book recommendations.

 

 

If you read just one book make it: The Problem of Political Authority, by Michael Huemer

This goes into how law might/could work in the absence of Political Authority a bit in the second half of the book, but the first half is probably the best explanation I've ever read (and I've read hundreds of such books) of why Political solutions to these problems haven't worked and can't work, and even if they did work are not moral by even the most liberal use of the term. 

 

Other good reads that go into this area (in order) are:

 

The Machinery of Freedom: Guide to a Radical Capitalism, by David D. Friedman  or Pre-Order the 2014 version

Law's Order: What Economics Has to Do with Law and Why It Matters, by David D. Friedman

The Market for Liberty, by Morris Tannehill also: (free ebook versions)

For a New Liberty: The Libertarian Manifesto, by Murray N. Rothbard also: (Free audiobook version) and (Free ebook versions)

Anarchy and the Law: The Political Economy of Choice (Independent Studies in Political Economy), by Edward P. Stringham

The Conscience of an Anarchist: Why It's Time to Say Good-Bye to the State and Build a Free Society, by Gary Chartier

 

Other Books good books to read (and they are free):

 

Everyday Anarchy: The Freedom of Now, by Stefan Monyneux

Practical Anarchy: The Freedom of the Future, by Stefan Monyneux

Both available here in multiple formats: FreeDomainRadio.com/FreeBooks.aspx. A few of his other books are good as well.

 

I highly recommend this book to the "Drug dealers are bad" types, if nothing else it will make you think about many types of people you previously dismissed as unquestionably bad in a different way:

 

Defending the Undefendable, by Walter Block Also: ((Audio book version)

 

Anything else by Walter Block is good as well: Author: Walter-Block

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[yadayada]

It seems being general with a statement like that is grossly oversimplifying it.

 

You basicly need to be in some perfect free market fairytown with perfect law for it to be true. In reality there is such a thing called politics. So it is not a very relevant statement imo.

 

[rkbabang]

It seems being general with a statement like that is grossly oversimplifying it.

 

You basicly need to be in some perfect free market fairytown with perfect law for it to be true. In reality there is such a thing called politics. So it is not a very relevant statement imo.

 

 

The answer to the original question asked in the first post is "Yes".  True there exists politics, there also exists private thieves, gangsters, and murderers.  That doesn't change good and bad, nor right from wrong.  There seems to be two objections to what I've said.

 

1) "Investors are no better than cab drivers".  My answer to that is yes, but so what?  The world doesn't need more heroes, it just needs more people to go from doing net negative things to net positive.  If you draw a line in the sand and put everything on one side that is a net positive and everything on the other side that is a net negative. Investors are on the net positive side with the cab drivers and landscapers, not on the net negative side with the con-artists, thieves, murderers, tax collectors, and politicians.

 

2) "Profits are good is too general a statement".  Yes, which is why I qualified it with profiting without initiating violence against others.  If you profit by lobbying the government to protect you from competitors or to protect you from being held liable to those you harm, then you are initiating violence to get your profits and are clearly on the "net negative" side of the line.  This could be applied to shareholders as well, which is why there are companies which I won't invest in.  I want to try to stay away from that line if I can.

 

 

 

[Vish_ram]

Forget investing, any lawful action is good for the society.

 

Anyone having any interaction with society in lawful ways is good for the society. Next comes the Q, who is doing more good?

 

Is Buffett doing more good than Buffett's barber? A big portion of Buffett's good should be attributed to his family, barber, professors, college, cops/firefighters in Omaha, tailor etc .....

 

Buffett used all the social capital that he could get.

[Palantir]

Is momentum trading good for society?

[JSArbitrage]

Forget investing, any lawful action is good for the society.

 

... what?

[rkbabang]

Forget investing, any lawful action is good for the society.

 

Anyone having any interaction with society in lawful ways is good for the society. Next comes the Q, who is doing more good?

 

Is Buffett doing more good than Buffett's barber? A big portion of Buffett's good should be attributed to his family, barber, professors, college, cops/firefighters in Omaha, tailor etc .....

 

Buffett used all the social capital that he could get.

 

I don't know, I'd need more information. Is buffett's barber donating $Billions to charity?

Again, we all do what we can do. I don't think the question of who is doing more good is a very valuable thing to focus on.  This isn't a pissing contest, we're all just trying to get by the best we can. Don't do evil, anything else goes, IMHO.

 

 

[yadayada]

It seems being general with a statement like that is grossly oversimplifying it.

 

You basicly need to be in some perfect free market fairytown with perfect law for it to be true. In reality there is such a thing called politics. So it is not a very relevant statement imo.

 

 

The answer to the original question asked in the first post is "Yes".  True there exists politics, there also exists private thieves, gangsters, and murderers.  That doesn't change good and bad, nor right from wrong.  There seems to be two objections to what I've said.

 

1) "Investors are no better than cab drivers".  My answer to that is yes, but so what?  The world doesn't need more heroes, it just needs more people to go from doing net negative things to net positive.  If you draw a line in the sand and put everything on one side that is a net positive and everything on the other side that is a net negative. Investors are on the net positive side with the cab drivers and landscapers, not on the net negative side with the con-artists, thieves, murderers, tax collectors, and politicians.

 

2) "Profits are good is too general a statement".  Yes, which is why I qualified it with profiting without initiating violence against others.  If you profit by lobbying the government to protect you from competitors or to protect you from being held liable to those you harm, then you are initiating violence to get your profits and are clearly on the "net negative" side of the line.  This could be applied to shareholders as well, which is why there are companies which I won't invest in.  I want to try to stay away from that line if I can.

What about martial arts :( , MMA is bad?  ;D

 

Agree with you tho, but i think this issue is somewhat complicated and can't be wrapped up in one nice looking quote.

[rkbabang]

It seems being general with a statement like that is grossly oversimplifying it.

 

You basicly need to be in some perfect free market fairytown with perfect law for it to be true. In reality there is such a thing called politics. So it is not a very relevant statement imo.

 

 

The answer to the original question asked in the first post is "Yes".  True there exists politics, there also exists private thieves, gangsters, and murderers.  That doesn't change good and bad, nor right from wrong.  There seems to be two objections to what I've said.

 

1) "Investors are no better than cab drivers".  My answer to that is yes, but so what?  The world doesn't need more heroes, it just needs more people to go from doing net negative things to net positive.  If you draw a line in the sand and put everything on one side that is a net positive and everything on the other side that is a net negative. Investors are on the net positive side with the cab drivers and landscapers, not on the net negative side with the con-artists, thieves, murderers, tax collectors, and politicians.

 

2) "Profits are good is too general a statement".  Yes, which is why I qualified it with profiting without initiating violence against others.  If you profit by lobbying the government to protect you from competitors or to protect you from being held liable to those you harm, then you are initiating violence to get your profits and are clearly on the "net negative" side of the line.  This could be applied to shareholders as well, which is why there are companies which I won't invest in.  I want to try to stay away from that line if I can.

What about martial arts :( , MMA is bad?  ;D

 

Agree with you tho, but i think this issue is somewhat complicated and can't be wrapped up in one nice looking quote.

 

OK how about: "Profiting without initiating violence against others who don't wish to have violence initiated against them".

:)

 

It is complicated, but not nearly as complicated as people want to think it is.  There is nothing wrong with violence if it is wanted and consented to by all parties involved, such as MMA, boxing, assisted suicide, BSDM, etc.  Anything goes between consenting adults.

 

[JSArbitrage]

I think people are getting two concepts confused: (a) goodness and (b) beneficial.  Many seem to be saying that someone that provides more benefit to society is "more good."  You're mistaking two concepts IMO and it's a very common mistake among the wealthy (because they've provided more benefit so they want to believe they are better people.)

 

Goodness and beneficial sometimes overlap but often don't. 

 

Examples:

 

(1) Building a time machine and going back in time and murdering Hitler as a child.  Provides a TON of benefit but it's probably not a good act.  Massacring the Native Americans in the US to build a benevolent empire.  Provided a TON of benefit to the world but was not much different than an American Holocaust.

 

(2) People who devote their lives to something good but it never pans out.  Example would be a technique to cure cancer that, in the end, proves useless.  A really good act that provided no benefit in the end.

 

So I guess my point is that a pure utilitarian view of goodness (goodness = beneficial) can lead you to some crazy results.  And is probably responsible for the massive egos of many wealthy people.

[rkbabang]

I think people are getting two concepts confused: (a) goodness and (b) beneficial.  Many seem to be saying that someone that provides more benefit to society is "more good."  You're mistaking two concepts IMO and it's a very common mistake among the wealthy (because they've provided more benefit so they want to believe they are better people.)

 

Goodness and beneficial sometimes overlap but often don't. 

 

Examples:

 

(1) Building a time machine and going back in time and murdering Hitler as a child.  Provides a TON of benefit but it's probably not a good act.  Massacring the Native Americans in the US to build a benevolent empire.  Provided a TON of benefit to the world but was not much different than an American Holocaust.

 

(2) People who devote their lives to something good but it never pans out.  Example would be a technique to cure cancer that, in the end, proves useless.  A really good act that provided no benefit in the end.

 

I think your right in that goodness doesn't equal beneficial, but beneficial is a subset of goodness. I disagree that you can have something beneficial, but not good.

 

1) I'll ignore the going back in time thing, because that isn't possible and it wouldn't necessarily be beneficial. You don't know what would have happened if someone had killed Hitler, it could have been worse. And most certainly wouldn't be beneficial for those who are alive today, but would never be born if this happened. Also I highly object to your Native American example. I don't think you can call the massacring Native Americans any more beneficial than you can call massacring Jews.  I disagree that the US's existence is a net positive on the world and I disagree that it is can be described as a benevolent empire.  I understand why you would think that, having been educated in your formative years by the very same regime and not personally knowing anyone the regime's bombs have killed.

 

2) While certainly possible, something that is good, can rarely be said to have no benefit.  The person who set out to cure cancer, probably supported himself and his family with that job and it had benefits for all of them.  Also it added to the whole of human knowledge, if you have to try 10000 things before something works, the 10000 other things were not wasted, they were learning experiences and added to the knowledge of what doesn't work.  Even if you never find something that works, you have given humanity the knowledge of one more thing that doesn't, so someone else can know not to repeat your mistakes.  Research is never a complete waste.  So while "beneficial" is a subset of "goodness" there are very few things that are good, but not in at least some small way beneficial to someone.

 

[JSArbitrage]

I think your right in that goodness doesn't equal beneficial, but beneficial is a subset of goodness.

 

I don't agree.  Beneficial is just beneficial. 

 

This reminds me of the Nietzschean discussion of "virtue."  After Christianity, people believed something "virtuous" had to be something "good" according to Christian values.  But, for the Greeks, virtue was excellence.  So if you were, say, an excellent liar, you were virtuous.

 

We now have a new religion in much of the world called capitalism and for this new religion, virtue is benefit.  Not to speak ill of the dead but Steve Jobs might be an example of such a thing.  He was pretty much a selfish asshole for most of his life but he was rich and created benefit for society.  So he is virtuous. 

 

 

[Cardboard]

Talking about selfish assholes... why do I get mad when my stocks go down? Why do I keep investing instead of spending it all on me? Why do I keep saving to eventually give to these true mindless assholes who keep on reproducing so they are just like others and unable to say no to their animal instincts?

 

These people sure do not question themselves about holding or not the higher moral ground!

 

Cardboard

[rkbabang]

I think your right in that goodness doesn't equal beneficial, but beneficial is a subset of goodness.

 

I don't agree.  Beneficial is just beneficial. 

 

This reminds me of the Nietzschean discussion of "virtue."  After Christianity, people believed something "virtuous" had to be something "good" according to Christian values.  But, for the Greeks, virtue was excellence.  So if you were, say, an excellent liar, you were virtuous.

 

We now have a new religion in much of the world called capitalism and for this new religion, virtue is benefit.  Not to speak ill of the dead but Steve Jobs might be an example of such a thing.  He was pretty much a selfish asshole for most of his life but he was rich and created benefit for society.  So he is virtuous. 

 

You can sometimes label actions as good/bad, or beneficial/harmful, or virtuous/non-virtuous, but you can never label individual people with those terms and be 100% correct.  We all have our good and bad points.  Some more than others in both directions, of course.

[randomep]

to the last 2 posts quoting me "+1"...

 

1.  I had previously addressed 2 examples that touches on some of these (Scroll up).

2.  I guess I should clarify my position that a profit made in a free market (devoid of crony capitalism) is due to the result of doing something good.  This also presumes that laws regarding property rights, theft, fraud, and externalities of behaviors are enforced.

3.  Regarding munger...???  I don't know what you want me to say to that.  You are clearly quoting someone who said an exaggeration and generalization as though it is gospel.  I'm going to turn your quote "Are you kidding me?" back on you with this one.

 

I dont want to hi-jack this thread and turn this into a totally separate discussion (the thread is about whether investing results in a societal benefit, which I believe it does).  If you want to discuss the topic of whether any profit is good for society more, feel free to PM me.

 

Well Watsa, I think this is a digression about any profit is good, and eventually we will have a thread about the meaning of good. I mean this can go on and on, I mean I could respond but then it will just continue and continue. But the topic that really interest me and the subject of this thread is:

 

How you YOU feel about minority stake shareholding as a part-time or full-time job. Do you feel good about yourself that you are doing good for society? It is a subjective question.

 

I think I got an idea from the responses so far, most feel as I do, that we are doing something good.

[TwoCitiesCapital]

Didn't take the time to read all 8 pages, and I'm sure the point has already been made, but I felt compelled to answer just in case it hadn't.

 

To assess if we're doing any good you have to ask yourself what service you're providing if that could be deemed as good. Intelligent investors in general provide for more efficient markets. Efficient markets should move capital to companies/individuals who provide a good return on that capital by providing services of value to society. Without relatively efficient capital markets, it'd be hard for companies look Google and Walmart and others to positively impact the lives of the millions (or billions) that they affect over the course of a life time.

 

You may not individually provide for this, but by being an intelligent investor, you become part of a system that makes this possible. Otherwise, companies like Google and Walmart would have to rely on money that they were able to raise privately which probably wouldn't have been nearly enough for them to have generated the scale that they've achieved.

[Uccmal]

along those lines:

 

If I and my pals on this board didn't buy BAc at $5, GE at 10, etc.  Whatnwould have happened to those companies?  We stabilized the market  We had nothing to do with their decline but we provided confidence when it was most needed.  A company with a stock price of zero will go out of business eventually. 

[ERICOPOLY]

Here is what I think.  This money that I made came to me because I put my balls on the line.  I'm not some tycoon that exploited vulnerable workers.  I didn't get rich on crony capitalism.  I'm not a "fat cat" banker.  I didn't get rich while hiding behind a corporate veil.  I didn't inherit my money.  I'm not getting handouts for political influence. 

 

However, here is how I get treated by society going forward:

A)  I share 30+% on my gains. 

B)  If I lose a lot of money, nobody will share in my losses.

 

Somebody is getting one hell of free ride and it clearly isn't me.  Therefore, I must be a net benefit to everyone who gets something for no skin off their back.  If I win, so do they.  If I lose, too bad for me alone.

 

[finetrader]

I believe that someone who gets to do what he enjoy in life, and this can take the form of investing full time, and not having to go out and do a work he doesn't like, is a happier human being. And I also believe that a happy man can make 10 persons around him happier.