Hacker News Reader

Comment by chinathrow | Hacker News Reader

$60B of the $100B number is from countries (Saudi Arabia, Abu Dhabi) where human rights issues are still a big thing these days.

Maybe we can think about that whenever we see where SoftBanks new fund is invested in - it's 60% money from folks which do not care much about some basic human rights.

View on HN

Same goes for Uber [1]. Something to think about next time one orders one.

[1] https://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/02/technology/uber-investmen...

http://www.kingdom.com.sa/investments

My personal favorite is Fox News.

Let's also note CNN: http://www.kingdom.com.sa/investments/media-and-publishing/t...

Gotta love hn where human rights concerns get downvoted, top voted comment? look how rich this guy is

The comment implies that investment encourages the abuse. I don't think you can take that at face value. There is an argument that foreign investment tends to liberalize those sorts of countries.

> There is an argument that foreign investment tends to liberalize those sorts of countries.

The way I read, it's investment _from_ those countries, not _to_ them.

If you know that your purchase/use of product X, funded by fund Y with money from country Z will in the end benefit the chiefs of country Z - then no, there is no way that this "liberalizes" those countries. It supports the status quo (rich families/dynasties on top). It cements the status quo.

So?

You are aware that these are "issues" from your "point of reference".

Someone else consider that the US has a bad human rights record. Does that mean that he should boycott US companies/fund?

USA has a bad human rights record

Compared to which other huge countries?

Don't cut the phrase. That's not what I said.

No no, that is not my point of reference only.

https://www.hrw.org/middle-east/n-africa/saudi-arabia

https://www.hrw.org/middle-east/n-africa/united-arab-emirate...

Also, the US isn't part of this discussion right now. And I am not from the US.

Or yours and that of hrw. I'm pretty sure lots of other people think SA/UAE have bad human rights records too.

Why would you boycott an investment based on anything other than potential profit? You don't get an account statement showing karma profit and loss.

That's exactly my point. Morals are relative. A dollar is a dollar, however.

When I invest in something, it's to reap (fast) profits. As the time I have been investing increases, my concern with the relationship between funds/instruments and human rights has inversely decreased. When I talk to other traders/investors, they have the same sentiment. When you step back and analyze that, it comes out to "the trend is not to care about <whatever>-rights at all".

Don't fight the trend. Seriously, don't fight the trend. You're investing to make money. You are not investing to change the world(eg charitable giving).

Ethics and investing/trading should not be married together. If they are, you close many doors that may be profitable, and open 0 new doors. Think about that for a second... by upholding personal values in your investment strategy, you eliminate good investments, and create zero new(good or bad) investments. Why would you do this?

tldr; retail investors make decisions based on all the wrong data points, and are resultantly unprofitable.

This is a narrow view that only looks at the amount of money. It's perfectly valid to choose investment opportunities based on other factors. One can choose to invest in a local enterprise because it'll help the local community. You might have somewhat less money on your bank account, but you'll raise the wellbeing of the people around you. The same goes for any other non-monetary gain. If it makes you sleep better knowing that your money is used to teach kids how to sing instead of building rifle ammunition, then this shouldn't be ignored when choosing where to invest.

There's more to life than money. A lot more. Investment choices can have profound effects on plenty of other things besides your bank account. So, think about that instead -- make sure that you aren't missing out on wonderful non-monetary gains when choosing your investment.

Ethics and investing/trading should not be married together.

I don't say this lightly: this is a disgusting worldview. What keeps you from funding human trafficking, assuming a great rate of return? Or funding terrorism while shorting the stocks of companies affected?

You also realize that there's no real difference between funding the organizations who do bad things, and starting / running those organizations, right?

Honestly, it sounds like maybe you just don't have ethics, period.

>> Honestly, it sounds like maybe you just don't have ethics, period.

I thought that was obvious. I'm speaking about investing, the other things you added don't enter my thought process, they are irrelevant to investing.

Stand on your moral soapboxes if you must, but this is about investing. I'm profitable, and one of the keys to that is not caring about anything other than being profitable. Don't handicap yourself, the sharks you are playing against certainly don't.

>> You also realize that there's no real difference between funding the organizations who do bad things, and starting / running those organizations, right?

I didn't mean to ignore your question in my earlier reply. I realize this entirely. I'm not funding ISIS or trafficking organizations - I'm funding(for minutes at a time) pubicly traded organizations. Those tend to not dabble in the acts you mentioned. Hyperbole is fun, right?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com