Could you support a divestment campaign targeting PNAC nations?

[norml]

Could you support a divestment campaign targeting PNAC nations?

It could be a worldwide campaign encouraging divestment in the securities of PNAC nations.

In a divestment campaign you sell your U.S./U.K./ect. securities, and urge others to do the same.

Divestment isn't the same as a boycott, which can be part of a divestment campaign, but doesn't have to be.

A divestment campaign might be politically unpopular in the targeted nations, but would be hard to argue against in the rest of the world.

A divestment campaign hurts those at the top the most.

If enough of the rest of the world dumps their U.S./U.K./ect. stocks, bonds, and currency, it will hurt those in charge, just like it hurt those in charge of apartheid South Africa, when they were targeted with a divestment campaign.

A divestment campaign could be used as a last resort, if things got much worse, and we were looking for something beyond the vote to use as a political weapon.

Under such circumstances could you support a divestment campaign targeting PNAC nations?

[Gronk Groks]

1. Sounds like shooting yourself in the foot...

...only to be done in extreme emergency, such as when it is suicide to continue the current course of action.

Of course with Bush Inc in charge it may come down to suicide prevention measures.

Just not yet...

[Coastie for Truth]

2. You need some serious reading----

1. Economics - Paul Samuelson

<>

2. Macroenomics - Paul Samuelson

<>

3. Microeconomics - Paul Samuelson

<>

4. International Economics: Theory and Policy - Paul Krugman

<>

5. Macroeconomics - Paul Krugman

<>

6. Economics: Analysis Decision Making and Policy - George Leland Bach

7. Economics for Dummies - Sean Flynn

<http://images.amazon.com/images/P/0764557262.01._BO2,204,203,200_PIsitb-dp-500-arrow,TopRight,45,-64_AA240_SH20_SCLZZZZZZZ_.jpg>


South Africa was so sui generis as to be a "negative teaching."

If you actually read you will see that it is a collection of well over a hundred boring, pompous, turgid "analyses" from the "Project For the New American Century" think tank. And when you scrape away William Kristol's wet dreams and mental masturbation you will see that it is about projecting American power in a monopolar world to protect American hegemony over "resources" (i.e., oil).

I would suggest selective investment in companies that are working to wean us from oil -- and selective shareholder law suits from companies that are (indirectly) increasing our dependence on oil.

Since I've given you a reading list, let me add two more, so you can see where I am going:

1. The Long Emergency: Surviving the End of the Oil Age, Climate Change, and Other Converging Catastrophes of the Twenty-first Century by James Howard Kunstler

<http://images.amazon.com/images/P/0871138883.01._BO2,204,203,200_PIsitb-dp-500-arrow,TopRight,45,-64_AA240_SH20_SCLZZZZZZZ_.jpg>

2. Winning The Oil Endgame by Amory B. Lovins

<>

[norml]

5. Funny that when I asked this question in a different way it got 79% Yes.

Thanks for your thoughtful reply.

After I get off work I'll have to look at what you're saying in more detail.

Of course I'm using PNAC as a sort of shorthand for those supporting policies of invasion, occupation, and rejection of the rule of law.

Here's a link to the question and poll results in GD that I changed slightly for this GDP thread.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x5076900

[Coastie for Truth]

6. That's an overly broad and imprecise brush

You ought to look at the Unitarian Universalist Church's investment strategy.

They exclude armaments producers, polluters, companies that are anti-union, as well as companies that discriminate (hiring, promotion, retention) based on sexual orientation, age, race, religion, national origin, physical or mental challenge, companies that use child labor/slave labor, etc.

Similarly, Calpers, the "old" TIAA/CREF, and the NY Public Employees' Pension Funds not only follow similar guidelines -- but they "work on" the managers and directors.

Divestment is kind of counterproductive in a "double auction" market (like a stock market), unless the totality of divestors owns in excess of several percentage points of the stock (unlikely).

[ArkDem]

7. For another 'slight' change why don't you start the question

with if we invade France.....:shrug:

[norml]

9. What did you think I meant by "if things got much worse"?

Invading Iran is one of the possibilities that would make things much worse.

[ArkDem]

3. Put down your bong.

[tmoore]

4. Have you lost your mind...

:nuke:

[norml]

10. What is the most extreme action you are prepared to take?

Since I'm not prepared to take to the streets, to push and be pushed around in some forceful way, promoting a divestment campaign is the most extreme action I'm prepared to take, if things should get much worse.

[1932]

8. I would focus on corporations and industries profiting from PNAC

media, weapons, oil, etc.