I'd much, much rather get my film developed at the locally-owned shop, but I simply can't afford it. And there aren't any locally-owned art supplies shops (that I can find), so it's either shop there, or don't get it at all anywhere.

I won't buy clothes at Wal-Mart since I heard they were high on the list of sweatshop users - but is buying them anywhere else any different? And is buying brand names -for food, say- from Wal-Mart supporting those sweatshops, or merely the brand names?

A co-operative is an

quote:

---

autonomous association of persons united voluntarily to meet their common economic, social, and cultural needs and aspirations through a jointly-owned and democratically-controlled enterprise.

Co-operatives are based on the values of self-help, self-responsibility, democracy, equality, equity, and solidarity. In the tradition of their founders, co-operative members believe in the ethical values of honesty, openness, social responsibility, and caring for others

--International Co-operative Alliance Statement on the Co-operative Identity

---

The majority of my money goes to my mortgage, eating out, boozy nights with my buddies, books, and my expensive hobby of collecting old video games from pawn shops and eBay.

I spend very little on my car or on clothes, but I spend too much on the little things. The little things really do add up. Luckily, I'm really good about squirrelling away a portion of each paycheque into my RRSP.

I try really hard to buy stuff second-hand and to look for really good deals, but I find I just end up buying more of it, so the savings are cancelled out.

How important is buying new-to-you stuff? Do you need to have your mortgage paid and your RRSP full, before social responsibility kicks in?

Is "ethical investing" simply a way to provide for the continuation of the consumerist lifestyle when we are retired? It does not matter which publicly traded corporation you give your money to, it will run rough shod over your rights as a human citizen (as opposed to a corporate citizen).

Certainly it did not apply in nomadic hunter gatherer societies or primitive agricultural societies where children could do little of the useful work required other than gathering berries and perhaps watching for predators, snakes, and such. Is that "work"?

If there are labels on products saying "child labour free" and people refuse to buy them on that basis, then those who are selling products of child labour can make the exact argument that you just made, that "some children must work to live", and the public can respond by moral outrage and universal funding of orphanages and shelters, or by buying the products, or by simply refusing to be involved in a process of using children as labour, sticking their heads in the sand.

Moral choices are made by the individual but have impact that is universal.

Ethical training and excuses offered after the fact can provide guidance and make us feel good about what we've done, but none of this will change the fact that all "products" and "commodities" are really services performed for us at a distance in space and time. These things are done *FOR US*, and if we refuse to buy them then they are *NOT* replaced due to market forces. I point to the extinction of the market for endangered species products, and the social unacceptability of fur at any price... Did these things happen because people refused to apply ethical considerations first? No.

They happened because they became the first priority in the buyer's life, for some time,
to dissociate themselves from the process of extinction of these species. It became very uncool. It became worth the bother to find substitutes that had the same effect...

Would you hold up your made-in-China sweater and brag "desperate people made these for me at only 17 cents an hour!" Or "prisoners of conscience took three whole days to knit it!"

Of course not. So you cannot buy it, and be in any way an ethical person by the standards that would reject those practices.

Re ethical investing.

Jim Stanford of the CAW has written an excellent overview in Paper Boom how little of an impact "ethical investing" really has in the paper ecomomy.

"Ethical PURCHASING" on the other hand has far more potential for impact, and for causing change. It's because purchases in the real economy directly affect the corporate bottom line. It's why I refuse to shop at Wal-Mart, for example, or Chapters. In the first case, Wal-Mart sells cheap crap and treats its workers like garbage. In the second case, Chapters got bought out by a takeover artist (Gerry Schwartz) and his wife, and that same SOB ran Onex which tried to take over Canadian Airlines.

Shazam.

I have a general BA in Communications Studies from the U of Windsor. IMHO, this isn't a very prestigious degree, but it works for me.

I actually have heard of the BC Institute of Technology, though I admit I know very little about it.

A few of my friends have mortgages, or could afford them if they wanted them. Some of them have degrees and some don't. They range from HR advisors and computer programmers to machinists and welders.

All I'm saying is that home ownership is not out of reach of people just because they belong to the 20-30 demographic. There are bargains out there to be found.

Unemployment is, of course, an obvious barrier. I wish you much luck in the future of your career.

I'm checking out Real Assets because they seem to have a really good socially responsible mutual fund. I looked at the companies on their top list and I have to say I agree with their policies.

Toyota, for instance, is selling me on their Prius. If I could afford a vehicle and actually needed one (I use public transit and as soon as winter is gone here in Saskatchewan I'm buying a new bike) I would get that.

Canon, also for instance, makes great products. Their cameras are highly rated and my guess is that is because they are a good company. I love my Canon digital camera.

Their other fund is a lot of banks, so I will be avoiding that one. It's designed for shareholder activism - to use their sharepower to turn the corporation into a better company.

Jeans made in Canada can be found at Mark's Work Warehouse, socks and underwear can be found under the Stanfields brand. Dress shoes can be found made in Italy and the US - if you consider the US ethical. Writing a letter (even an e-mail) to these companies showing your (ongoing) support can only help the cause, I suspect. Are there any websites listing Made in Canada goods?

Here's something to consider the next time you recieve poor service somewhere, or hear of somewhere with consistently poor service: The chances are pretty good that the staff are being treated poorly by management.

Every time we shop at these places (Walmart and Tim Hortons come to mind) we are supporting not only bad treatment of staff, but also perhaps such things as violence, oppression, and attempted cultural genocide (think Walmart and its reliance on Chinese made goods, or buying Chinese made goods in general), or undue pollution and sub living-wage wages (think Tim Hortons with its part time staff, low pay and double cups).

One could also think of Mcdonalds with its pay structures, union busting, and the effects on health and the environment (think trans-fats and the environmental costs of meat mass-production here and elsewhere)

Which reminds me of the article here
http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Corporate_Welfare/WalMart_Welfare.html regarding some hidden costs of US Wal-Marts.

[ 31 March 2005: Message edited by: Mr. Anonymous ]

And I'd rather eat my arm off than buy a Nestle product.

- Buy Local: If you know your supplier, he/she is more likely to treat you well. Also, local suppliers tend to polute less, (due to tighter restictions here in Canada) and less gas used for transportation. Countries that provide cheap goods are often brutal towards their people and their neighbors (see China w/ an estimated million dead Tibetans many of them monks and nuns, or recent talk about Taiwan). Monies spent buying from these places might be propping up these brutal regiems and hurting the chances of decent government or human rights advances, as well as hurting the non-wealthy in your own country who may be loosing jobs to these places.

- Buy Small: Smaller businesses tend to treat their staff better, and give more to charity than bigger businesses. The adage "Power corrupts" is something to keep in mind. Most large corperations are quite corrupt in many ways if you research them.

Buy Less: Some studies suggest that people who have accumulated less stuff tend to be happier than those who have accumulated more.
Buying less will also help you save money for experiences (vacations, retreats, and other outings) that have been linked to increased happiness. It also will allow you to save and retire earlier (less stress), or perhaps pursue jobs you might find more satisfying, if lower paying. It will also enable you to give more money to charity, which also tends to increase happiness levels.

[ 04 April 2005: Message edited by: bhamathump ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by bhamathump:

Just a word of warning. The U.S. empire is in decline so beware the sound of markets flushing.

---

Very true. With huge personal and governmental debt - and getting bigger by the day - the US dollar being artificially inflated via its usage as a worldly currency (which will likely change to the Euro fairly soon, with massive devaluation the result as the money floods the market), and a very poorly backed currency, the US - and by extension its biggest trading partner Canada - is in for a massive crash indeed.

quote:

---

No doubt this has been covered before, but I'm not sure where to look.
Here's the problem, back in the day I left my position with a municipal Social Services department for a couple of reasons
1. As an early pilot site for Ontario Works I couldn't stomach the idea of implementing that agenda and be paid to do it.
2. I wanted to be at home with our children, especially rather than do 1. above.
For some reason that now escapes me we decided to withdraw my few dollars from the pension fund and invest it ourselves. I think there was a good reason, but what I don't know. Since then it has always bothered me how my money might be being used although it is not very much. I can't just cash it in because of pension rules and the law it is locked in until I'm 65 or something like that.
What I would like to do is transfer it to a more ethical investment than it currently is through our bank. Any suggestions? I still need to make some money out of it too, as I am hoping to have enough in my golden years to buy a popsicle on hot days. If I could I would just cash it in and invest it in the farm, i.e. pay off some bills, but I can't so I would like my little bit of money to do someone else some good somehow. Now remember I live a goodly distance from any major centres, unless you consider Eden Grove a major centre, so I probably don't have as many options available as some of you, for instance we are a one bank town.
Thanks for any advice.

---

[ 04 June 2005: Message edited by: Grant I R ]

www.socialfunds.com

My old socialfunds.com article isn't loading, but I'm getting an error message even from the main page, so it might be the site.

From ethicalfunds.com

From creo.com