To carry along the weak week-day alliteration, I could have brought you Self-Absorbed Saturday and Self-Centered Sunday, perhaps even More-About-Me Monday, but honestly I thought it best to give a pass. I was about tired of hearing myself piss and moan, let alone forcing anyone else to suffer through it.
At least anyone who hasn’t taken a public vow regarding devotion to me in sickness and health. Emphasis strongly on the former of late.
So, time for something different.
Someone slung the phrase “East-coast liberal” my way recently. While it seemed unprovoked, I could hardly take umbrage; in Curley’s classic words, I resemble that remark. Yes, although these days my accent would clearly peg me as more of a mid-Atlantic type than a true easterner, my liberal leanings aren’t much of a secret.
But in light of Reeechard’s comment on my “Alignment” post of last week I want to take a ramble through some of the nuances of that liberality. Because he raised the points for argument, and now is my opportunity for rebuttal. Because I love when someone disagrees with me and says so. And because it will be a pleasure to focus for a few minutes on something other than the fact that I have a twisted ankle and a crippling crud that’s going to keep me, yet again, from a workout today. If nothing else, perhaps I can exercise my brain.
So go ahead and click here to read his comment so you can get all fired up on one side or the other. I’ll wait right here.
All right then. First off, I’ll allow that my lead-in, tagging Exxon Mobil’s new record profits, was weak. In my defense, this is a blog, not journalism, and my mental meanderings don’t always follow a linear model.
Fact is I heard that tidbit and promptly jumped in nonlinear manner to the thought that I’m glad the MPM and I have been able to more closely align our investments with our values. And thus the point of the post was to perhaps get some thought going about the fact that the statement in your hands provides only the information “Fidelity Growth/FDGRX,” and not the details of its holdings (which include Monsanto and Phillip Morris). And if that doesn’t sit well with you, well, here’s one way to address it.
Okay. Proceeding on with rebuttal and commentary:
First off, Exxon is a corporation; corporations exist for the purpose of making money and in fact — though Reeechard didn’t bring it up — owe a fiduciary duty to their stockholders to do exactly that. I’m clear on that, indeed I am. But I’m not, as it turns out, in wholehearted agreement with the underlying principles of the premise.
“The decadent international but individualistic capitalism in the hands of which we found ourselves after the war is not a success. It is not intelligent. It is not beautiful. It is not just. It is not virtuous. And it doesn’t deliver the goods.” I might not agree with everything that John Maynard Keynes espoused, if I were remotely smart enough to understand it all, but I sure as hell agree with that statement.
Because, you see, I value the ethical choice beyond most any other. I don’t value profit particularly, in part because I believe that it is often antithetical to a higher ethic. I understand that this doesn’t fit well into a capitalistic, or even any realistic, model. But it is closely hewed to the core of my beliefs and my values.
And here’s where I make the point that to insist on the truth or the rightness of one argument or another is to ignore that all arguments are, at their core, based on value judgments. And value judgments are, at their core, basically inarguable: like feelings and opinions, all lay equal claim to validity.
Exxon, and its big-oil bedmates, aren’t in business to tend to the things that I feel are valuable. And because of their size and their status as corporate citizens, they wield a tremendous amount of power as they seek to promote and participate in a model that I consider unsustainable and undesirable. And while Exxon specifically may in fact have undertaken some environmental efforts somewhere in the long aftermath of the stupendously unforgiveable fuckup known as the Valdez, they along with all the rest are running their ship hard to weather against best efforts to seek out and support new technology. Thus Exxon (et al.) and I are at odds. We value different things. I don’t dub them as evil, I simply don’t wish to support them.
Regarding other petrochemical products (those ones we “can’t live without,” as Reeechard comments), without delving into the research on the matter I’m still pretty comfortable wagering that production of such goods is not what is going to lead to the end of oil, particularly if we as a global economy were to stop consuming so much phenomenally unnecessary outrageously overpackaged plastic SHIT. No, it’s the fuel aspect that’s going to get us into trouble sooner rather than later.
Re the argument that suggests because bottled water is more expensive per gallon, gasoline prices shouldn’t be considered “gouging,” by all means hang your hat there if you wish, but let’s not ignore that if one feels the markup on that tempting bottle of designer water is too high, here in the U.S., and all other developed nations, we do have the luxury of obtaining obscene gallons of a perfectly acceptable alternative for mere pennies. Not so for gasoline.
And fact is, high gas prices don’t trouble me. I don’t even WANT cheap gas; my goals are likely better served by making gas prices downright exorbitant. But perhaps I think it’s fair for the price to reflect a true market, and not one that is swayed by control of flow, as Exxon and its ilk have been accused of attempting.
But mostly — fully recognizing that it smacks hard of starry-eyed idealism — I just wish to put my money behind companies that are in some measure pursuing the sorts of things that feel sustainable and ethical to me. Big oil giants aren’t at the top of that list.
More’s the pity, because the world might be a different place if they were.