<?xml version="1.0" encoding="ISO-8859-1" ?>




































































  <rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
    <channel>
      <title>Comments On: Greenwashed again
    
      by Harold Henderson</title>
      <link>http://www.chicagoreader.com/TheBlog/archives/2007/11/01/greenwashed-again</link>
      <atom:link href="http://www.chicagoreader.com/chicago/Rss.xml?oid=946298&amp;id=comments" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />      <description>Comments On: Greenwashed again
    
      by Harold Henderson</description>
      <language>en-us</language>
      <copyright>Copyright 2009 Chicago Reader. All rights reserved. This RSS file is offered to individuals, Chicago Reader readers, and non-commercial organizations only. Any commercial websites wishing to use this RSS file, please contact Chicago Reader.</copyright>
      <webMaster>wil@desert.net (Chicago Reader Webmaster)</webMaster>
      <pubDate>Sun, 22 Nov 2009 00:00:01 -0600</pubDate>
      <lastBuildDate>Sun, 22 Nov 2009 04:45:00 -0600</lastBuildDate>
      <generator>Foundation</generator>
      <docs>http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/tech/rss</docs>
      
        
          <item>
    
    <title><![CDATA[Re: Greenwashed again]]></title>
    
    
    <link><![CDATA[http://www.chicagoreader.com/TheBlog/archives/2007/11/01/greenwashed-again/#962893]]></link>
    
    <guid isPermaLink="true"><![CDATA[http://www.chicagoreader.com/TheBlog/archives/2007/11/01/greenwashed-again/#962893]]></guid>
    <author><![CDATA[Moon]]></author>
    <description>
      
      <![CDATA[So, quality of life isn't considered in capitalism? It's all about the money and that's it.
        
        <br />
        
          Posted by Moon]]>
    </description>
    <pubDate>Sat, 03 Nov 2007 15:49:05 -0500</pubDate> 
    <source url="http://www.chicagoreader.com">Chicago Reader</source>
  </item>
        
          <item>
    
    <title><![CDATA[Re: Greenwashed again]]></title>
    
    
    <link><![CDATA[http://www.chicagoreader.com/TheBlog/archives/2007/11/01/greenwashed-again/#966035]]></link>
    
    <guid isPermaLink="true"><![CDATA[http://www.chicagoreader.com/TheBlog/archives/2007/11/01/greenwashed-again/#966035]]></guid>
    <author><![CDATA[Paul Botts]]></author>
    <description>
      
      <![CDATA[Having given him some well-deserved grief in another item, fairness requires me to agree completely with John here. He's right about the silly quarterly-returns meme, and his last paragraph nicely sums up the broader reality of human history.
        
        <br />
        
          Posted by Paul Botts]]>
    </description>
    <pubDate>Fri, 02 Nov 2007 12:05:46 -0500</pubDate> 
    <source url="http://www.chicagoreader.com">Chicago Reader</source>
  </item>
        
          <item>
    
    <title><![CDATA[Re: Greenwashed again]]></title>
    
    
    <link><![CDATA[http://www.chicagoreader.com/TheBlog/archives/2007/11/01/greenwashed-again/#956572]]></link>
    
    <guid isPermaLink="true"><![CDATA[http://www.chicagoreader.com/TheBlog/archives/2007/11/01/greenwashed-again/#956572]]></guid>
    <author><![CDATA[John Powers]]></author>
    <description>
      
      <![CDATA[Yes Harold,
    
    The nature thing is called "externalities".  There are probably 10,000 people + studying this at any one time.  But the market rate is what is is, and many companies have a defined Internal Rate of Return that projects must meet.  Apparently this project did not meet that IRR.
    
    The quarterly returns story has always been pretty much nonsense.  Companies that seem to plan ahead (Intel or Merck, for example) have better returns than those that don't (Sunbeam or Enron, for example).
    
    And yes, the ancients discounted future earnings just like the moderns.  In Medieval Times, the Venetians had a very sophisticated insurance and investment market, comparable to the Board of Trade.  
    
    Capitalism identifies and explains markets, but the market itself, including discounting of future earning has been with us since the dawn of mankind, even if no one was  using the term "capitalism".
    
    JBP
        
        <br />
        
          Posted by John Powers]]>
    </description>
    <pubDate>Fri, 02 Nov 2007 07:23:24 -0500</pubDate> 
    <source url="http://www.chicagoreader.com">Chicago Reader</source>
  </item>
        
          <item>
    
    <title><![CDATA[Re: Greenwashed again]]></title>
    
    
    <link><![CDATA[http://www.chicagoreader.com/TheBlog/archives/2007/11/01/greenwashed-again/#964794]]></link>
    
    <guid isPermaLink="true"><![CDATA[http://www.chicagoreader.com/TheBlog/archives/2007/11/01/greenwashed-again/#964794]]></guid>
    <author><![CDATA[Harold]]></author>
    <description>
      
      <![CDATA[The "market rate" isn't necessarily the appropriate rate, since nature operates along different lines. Sometimes the "market rate" is obviously questionable, as when management is forced to operate on the basis of quarterly returns rather than longer-term objectives. And none of this has been going on since the beginning of time, as capitalism is a relatively recent development in human societies, much more recent than just buying and selling stuff.
        
        <br />
        
          Posted by Harold]]>
    </description>
    <pubDate>Fri, 02 Nov 2007 06:05:14 -0500</pubDate> 
    <source url="http://www.chicagoreader.com">Chicago Reader</source>
  </item>
        
          <item>
    
    <title><![CDATA[Re: Greenwashed again]]></title>
    
    
    <link><![CDATA[http://www.chicagoreader.com/TheBlog/archives/2007/11/01/greenwashed-again/#947904]]></link>
    
    <guid isPermaLink="true"><![CDATA[http://www.chicagoreader.com/TheBlog/archives/2007/11/01/greenwashed-again/#947904]]></guid>
    <author><![CDATA[John Powers]]></author>
    <description>
      
      <![CDATA[Capitalism discounts future returns at a market rate.  It does not "depend" on short term over long term return, rather balances the differences over time.  
    
    This has been going on since the beginning of time.  If we are "in real trouble" it is certainly not a new phenomenon.
    
    JBP
        
        <br />
        
          Posted by John Powers]]>
    </description>
    <pubDate>Thu, 01 Nov 2007 09:51:59 -0500</pubDate> 
    <source url="http://www.chicagoreader.com">Chicago Reader</source>
  </item>
        
      
    </channel>
  </rss>




