Over lunch I had a nice micro and macro economic discussion with Michelle about our dear president’s misguided approach to America First. About how fully 1.2 billion people on the planet don’t have electricity yet they, and many Americans fully feel broad swings in the economic, political and environmental arenas. They rarely have a chance to affect those swings individually. Interest rates, cost of firewood, cost of corn, access to capital, super storms, rising sea levels. But those at that subsistence level of the economy bear the extreme brunt of those swings. Geez see Puerto Rico. And earlier this year India, Nepal and Bangladesh. From a global economy standpoint one can argue that the free movement of capital fosters growth and creates opportunity. But does it? What are the true impacts?
I have a philosophy that the farther one gets away from his/her money the more the planet suffers. You don’t see how the local environment is affected by investing in property in another state. Your corporate stock holding does not identify fully its investment in a large damn that creates 100 temporary jobs but cuts down trees and displaces villagers. You don’t take notice that your Monsanto stock does well but it’s GMO products have cross contaminated the original corn plants in Chiapas Mexico. So in the interest of keeping up with your investments, you can just possibly wreak havoc on the most vulnerable in our country and others. It is not necessarily an intentional damaging of other peoples and cultures and environments. But rest assured, globalization and the free movement of money and investments, unfettered and unwatched, DOES hurt those most vulnerable. Both directly and indirectly. Consider that (and I will too) when you have the extra little bit of cash to invest. What impact do I have with my choices and who am I impacting that have none?