Hi Peter. I hope I am not being too naive, but every year I receive a report from pension fund an university explaining their investments and certifying that they are "ethical" investments, which includes weapons but also I expect things such as child labour etc. Now, of course I take that statement for good, and don't follow the money trail. Also, I'd expect that the definition of ethical investment to be recursive, so you only invest in companies that invest ethically. But I don't really know. Concerning the original message, I suppose I reacted to the idea that it would be somehow illegitimate to call for an academic boycott of Elsevier, more than wanting to take a position of merit. I am myself still working for Elsevier as an editor, though I am more and more uncomfortable with it, and expect to have to revise the situation soon. Best, \vs On 14 Dec 2006, at 05:21, Peter Selinger wrote:
Hi Vladimiro,
[off-list]
I wonder about that. I would be surprised if Elsevier's publishing business were more profitable, in relative terms, than their arms fair business. So I doubt that money we make for them gets invested in their weapons trade; it's probably the other way around.
Here are some other examples of companies many mathematicians do business with, that are also involved in selling military equipment:
http://www.army-technology.com/contractors/vehicles/ http://www.gmfleet.com/gmfleetjsp/government/product/military.jsp
The above aren't actually weapons, as those are mostly sold under different brands than civilian equipment. But this was not always so; for example, Chrysler openly made the Abrams Tank until 1982, when they sold off their Chrysler Defense division.
-- Peter
Vladimiro Sassone wrote:
Following Gabor's line of reasoning, and paying the utmost attention not to confuse cause with effect, it would be OK for us to invest in narcotics: after all, if people wouldn't use drugs, we wouldn't be making any money, the market would regulate itself and we would get what we deserve.
I have to add that I missed the connection with Iraq and the rest. There is an elephant in the room that Gabor seems to fail to notice: if the allegations are true, Elsevier would be investing money we directly make for them with our own (unpaid) work. Which -- whatever side you take in the dispute -- makes a call for boycott legitimate. My pension fund is bound to ethical investments, my employer too; I don't see why I shouldn't ask so for my publisher.
On 8 Dec 2006, at 01:46, Gabor Lukacs wrote:
[Note from moderator: as the poster points out, categories is not a forum for political discussion. Consequently, further messages on this topic received before Monday will be digested and posted then, closing the discussion.]