• Addfwyn@lemmygrad.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      16
      ·
      1 year ago

      This does come off a bit too hard to be legitimate I think, especially the “responsible investing” bit. I don’t think an actual warmonger would phrase it like that.

      On the other hand, I have absolutely seen people who think clusterbombs are a totally fine weapon to use. I am related to one. His argument was that they’d end the war faster and save more lives. Which…I don’t think I need to say that I disagree with that.

    • DamarcusArt@lemmygrad.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      15
      ·
      1 year ago

      This is someone who sees how much money is going to be made after the war when the west loots and plunders Ukraine and wants in on it. The “Help them win” stuff is just them trying to cover their own guilty conscience.

  • angrytoadnoises@lemmygrad.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    34
    ·
    1 year ago

    capitalist brainrot has convinced most normal people to go against the basic, child-level understanding of war being a bad thing. instead being against war is somehow juvenile and naïve. so it’s just normal to wonder how you can fund the results of your labor into killing machines. it’s just okay. it’s fine, i guess. nothing needs to improve here

  • knfrmity@lemmygrad.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    22
    ·
    1 year ago

    I dove into this a couple years ago trying to find some not-aggregious ETFs to invest in. There were very very very few mixed-industry ETFs that excluded both fossil fuels and weapons, which is a really low bar to clear.

      • knfrmity@lemmygrad.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        1 year ago

        There’s this ESG standard (Environment, Social, corporate Governance) that’s supposed to be an easy indicator for investors but it’s so useless it’s not even funny anymore.

        It’s so bad that hardcore imperial publications like the Financial Times have railed against ESG with completely liberal arguments. Even plurality owner of the empire Blackrock has internal dissent at the highest level towards the construct.

  • HaSch@lemmygrad.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    22
    ·
    1 year ago

    Now even after your stomach accommodates to the sheer amount of raw evil pouring forth from this, you will find that the Murder ETF is a nonsensical product that has no market. People buy ETFs because they are supposed to be a safe long-term investment representing a large cross-section of the economy, if your goal is financial stability why would you go gamble on the outcomes of military battles?

    • Tovarish Tomato@lemmygrad.mlOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      26
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Exchange traded fund. It’s basically a lot of different stocks bundled together into one Stock that you buy. It usally covers a specific part of the global market. So you can buy an ETF that represents the entire US market (this would be similar to buying stocks in every Dow Jones company), an ETF that represents the retail market (so you get shares of Walmart, Target, TraderJoes etc.), or in this case an ETF that represents the Weapons Manufacturing market (so Lockheed Martin, Boeing, Rheinmetall etc.).

      • Kidplayer_666@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        12
        ·
        1 year ago

        Usually they’re great investment devices as because they don’t lean too much on a single company, they just tend to have more stability and better returns overall

  • Kidplayer_666@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    5
    arrow-down
    32
    ·
    1 year ago

    At this point, I’ve seen people on all sides of the political spectrum advocate for the killing of civilians and dehumanising whoever is their enemy. Not surprised unfortunately.