From an idealistic standpoint, encouraging competition among banks encourages better service, rates, etc. But what we forget is that they aren't competing based on their respective currencies. In today's world, especially, a currency is only as good as the market's good will toward that currency - or its forced use.

That's one of the key differentiating factors in this whole debate: crypto-currencies aren't mandated by law to be accepted for payments and they exist only because people believe they exist (not much different than common fiat currencies). It's all fine and nice to suggest that vendors accept alternative currencies, but we also have to be cognizant that those accommodations incur costs to each and every business. (Let's not forget, but vendors already pay a 2% surcharge in order to process credit card payments...)

We start from fundamentals and principles, but there must also be a practical aspect of things. We still need commerce and business to function and should be aware that these are quite radical changes to what the entire system is used to. The upheaval of change should not be underestimated or downplayed simply because it doesn't match our notion of the ideal.

Couldn't the non-government digital currencies be "competition" for central bank currencies, forcing them to be useful or fall out of use?

I agree completely that they don't solve any of those problems. They do solve the problem of a need for a central ledger, which I suspect, although I'm not sure, will lead become a feature users won't want to be without. Beyond this, I just having multiple choices that users can pick from.

"That's one of the fundamental problems with ESG: it is extra-legal coercion. It is attempting to force other people into behaviors - especially in the marketplace - that they would not choose otherwise."
I think this essentially means if the government sets the standards. If a mutual fund choses to hold businesses that operate a certain way, that’s fine. If the government says to be a certain types of business entity, you must operate a certain way, that’s just a back-door way of telling people what to do by force.

"I think digital currency is coming one way or the other, and I want the gov’t out of it."

In the first couple of centuries in the United States' history we vacillated back and forth between having a central bank and not and we saw the results. Here are a few notes from my readings:

Central bank pros:
"Full faith and credit clause" encourages foreign investment by greatly reducing risk.
more stable exchange rates for international trading
more stable currency for domestic investments
Easier to engage in economic foreign policy options (embargos, sanctions, foreign aid, etc.)
Easier to engage in police measures (asset seizure, etc.)

Central bank cons:
Inflation (though this was largely a result of moving away from hard currency and not strictly a result of a central bank)
Lack of oversight and auditing
influence by foreign central banks


I don't really see digital currencies solving ANY of these problems - they just provide a different way for the same problems to persist.

I think that central banks can be a huge asset OR a huge detriment to any country. It all depends on the moral character of the people running them. It is unfortunate that we have seen that - as in government - central banks tend to be run by avaricious and power-hungry individuals, so if they are adopted it MUST be under the most stringent of controls and exposed to lots of daylight.

"Business owners might not want the business to get involved with drugs, sex, weapons, doing business on religious holidays."

If one wants to paint with very broad brush strokes and argue that all businesses have inherent "policy" positions which are part of doing business, I would have to agree with you. Making money in business includes not only what kinds of products and services one offers but how one goes about it, certainly. And this is where society has to set rules and laws regarding what is going to be tolerated and what is not.

I suggest that one key ingredient in any such evaluation is whether or not force or coercion is involved. For example, take a security service such as ADT and compare it to a protection racket such as one provided by the mob. Both provide security services for businesses so it isn't the service per se which is questionable, but rather whether or not the business is coerced into that protection which makes one legal (and moral) and the other not.

That's one of the fundamental problems with ESG: it is extra-legal coercion. It is attempting to force other people into behaviors - especially in the marketplace - that they would not choose otherwise. Specifically, it attempts to leverage access to the banking markets in an attempt to restrict otherwise-legal behaviors including ranching of livestock, use of herbicides, pesticides, and fertilizers in agriculture, purchase of firearms and/or ammunition, charitable support - especially to religious groups and non-profits, etc. Non-governmental entities should be allowed NO such influence because they then become de facto psuedo-governmental entities. We already have one - the Federal Reserve - and it has wreaked havoc with our economy.

“There's a big difference between a social cause and a business, however.”
That’s true in the sense that I don’t need my phone company donating to charity. It’s more efficient for the owners of a business to do that separately and outside of the business. OTOH, there are many business decisions that are informed by values. Business owners might not want the business to get involved with drugs, sex, weapons, doing business on religious holidays. They may want the business to err on the side of providing more training to employees even though they might leave the job or go beyond the letter of the law in protecting the environment. There are many decisions like this. I want more "a la carte" ESG, “socially conscious investing”, where I can invest in the broader markets but exclude the few things I don’t want to be associated with and overweight things consistent with my values.

“I fear government-controlled digital currency. I think privately-controlled digital currency is a fad. I want something real - something I can hold.”
I think digital currency is coming one way or the other, and I want the gov’t out of it.
Even though I’m numerically oriented, I really like having a stack of paper money that I can physically see go down. My mind can visually process that amount of value represented by those bills better than it processes numbers on a screen. I used to get a stack of local currency whenever I traveled for this reason, but now that’s becoming impractical. Many places prefer cards and sometimes don’t take cash.

But regardless of the format, I like money to be something totally unreal. People with their brains and hard work create value for one another. There’s no limit to it. I don’t want real value, e.g. a reel of powerful integrated circuits, a pound of nice food or drink, precious metals, boxes of ammo, or whatever it is to be a medium of exchange. I want those things deployed making people happy or creating future means of production. We can trade with any meaningless token that we have faith someone else will take in trade.

“Depends on what you understand Christianity to be, I guess. The Golden Rule was initiated with Christianity and it shows up in a lot of writings from the Magna Carta on down...”
The ancient religions have been understood (maybe misunderstood) to support slavery and socialism. I do not blame Christianity because those were the norm for the ancient world. I think Christianity, and all the other religions and ancient traditions, are seen as opposing selfishness. I think they started in a world where humankind struggled to get enough food and most human work was to produce food. Human reason invented things that made production shoot up like a hockey-stick curve, allowing an unthinkable level of prosperity. When you tell people the key to that is reason and creating an environment where people are left alone to pursue their selfish dreams, it goes against ancient customs. As you say, Christianity shows up in Magna Carta and other steps toward a freer world. I shouldn’t judge it by the bigots or people like those disgusting fictional Christians who Cheryl had the misfortune of meeting who were basically like Jim in wanting to demean her and then pat themselves on the back for offering her alms. I personally know some religious people who are the opposite of that.

"but I definitely like the idea of shareholders being able to invest in things they believe in."

There's a big difference between a social cause and a business, however. The goals are VERY different. Investors and donors are very different things and shouldn't be conflated. The #1 goal of business is to make money. Period. Not to pursue an ideological crusade. People are free to donate their money to such causes, but investment is measured by a financial return - not a psychological one. That the Democrats voted against a bill which would have required Boards to act in the fiduciary responsibility of their investors tells me all I need to know: they want to be able to waste anyone and everyone's money in pursuit of their schemes and NOT have to take responsibility for it!

"I'm not clear how Soros comes into this..."

Soros is only one of a group of self-appointed elitists who believe they have a right to control the world. Soros got his money attempting to take down the British government by undermining their currency and now he uses his ill-gotten gains to fund attempts at revolution all over the world but especially in America.

"I'm a fan of digital currency but a critic of government controlled digital currency"

I fear government-controlled digital currency. I think privately-controlled digital currency is a fad. I want something real - something I can hold.

"I want more banking, esp banking not associated with national banks."

Agreed, but this isn't what the elitists want. They see banking as a method of control, of determining who can open a business, stay in business, what types of products and services they can peddle, etc. They see it as a means to an end. I want banking restricted to being a means where the end is determined by individuals rather than the bank's board.

"Christianity. It pre-dates the modern marketplace and modern conceptions of rights."

Depends on what you understand Christianity to be, I guess. The Golden Rule was initiated with Christianity and it shows up in a lot of writings from the Magna Carta on down...

ESG
I don't agree with using investors' money for social causes, BUT I think separating business ownership from leadership incentivizes businesses to do things that the owners and managers don't believe in. Profits aren't real if they come from incurring costs on others by trashing the environment, stealing, etc. Laws should prevent those things, but I think there will always be border cases where companies' leadership feels pressure from analysts to do things they and the investors think is questionable. I don't know if ESG is the answer to that, but I definitely like the idea of shareholders being able to invest in things they believe in.

Soros-style
I'm not clear how Soros comes into this, but from what I know of him from his book I'm a Soros wannabe, a believer in open societies with fewer zeros in my net worth than Soros.

Digital Currency
I'm a fan of digital currency but a critic of government controlled digital currency.

Banking system
I'm generally a fan of banking, i.e. money being created to fund the creation of more value. I want more banking, esp banking not associated with national banks.

Christianity
It pre-dates the modern marketplace and modern conceptions of rights. In our times, many of them quietly roll up their sleeves, follow their dreams, and respect everyone's rights, which is really where human prosperity comes from. The vocal ones, however, are categorically against all that and act like just another group with their own excuse not to respect others.

Exactly!

Do you even know what ESG is? The acronym stands for Environmental, Social and Governance. It is an elitist ideology about business where considerations other than the profit motive are of primary importance. Yes, it is run by an cabal of ultra-rich elitists. Their goal is world domination in the George Soros-style of destroying the productivity and economy of every nation on earth so they can install a digital currency which you can only use to purchase goods and services they approve of. And they have co-opted the banking system - including most of the major world banks - in order to push this agenda. They don't care about "companies doing well" because their goal is to bankrupt most of them anyway!

The point is that ESG IS an elitist mindset which doesn't permit any other ideology - unlike most world religions like Christianity which don't directly interfere in the marketplace.

"Anyone missing in that supported group?" Those evil white supremacists expected to pick up the lions share of the tab.

From Nasdaq.
Across the investment management space, the focus around Environment, Social and Governance (ESG) practices has both shifted and heightened notably in recent years. A once niche industry, ESG adoption by asset managers has evolved into an all-encompassing transformation with ESG considerations working their way into almost every operational facet of a firm.
The impetus behind this movement is partially driven at the federal level. Earlier this spring the Securities and Exchange Commission announced sweeping regulatory reforms to climate disclosures. New rules would require public companies to report on climate-related risks
that have a material impact on financial statements and business strategy as well as the steps they are taking to mitigate them. Firms would also be required to calculate their carbon footprint using Greenhouse Gas (GHG) emissions standards with independent verification. Pending approval, a phased rollout would commence
in 2024.

Empowering diverse investors with the financial knowledge and confidence they need to share in the wealth that markets can create.
• Supporting diverse entrepreneurs with the necessary resources to strengthen and scale their businesses and contribute to the prosperity of society.
In 2021, the Nasdaq Foundation selected six partnership organizations through the Quarterly Grant Program. The services offered through these partnerships provide a wide range of support for Black, Latinx, and Indigenous founders and entrepreneurs, with a strong focus on women, as well as an introduction to financial careers For students of color.

Anyone missing in that supported group?

"one can NOT support ESG without supporting the "elite cabal stuff."
Is that because the a) the word ESG means by definition an elite cabal trying to rule the world, b) any large business whose owners try to make the business support their values inevitably turns into an elite cabal trying to rule the world, or c) something else?

With all due respect, one can NOT support ESG without supporting the "elite cabal stuff." Why? Because part of ESG is adhering to a framework of global rule where the elitists set the standards against which everyone else is measured without their approval. ESG's implementation is necessarily by force, which makes it very different from a business running itself.

The reason I posted this was to point out the insidious and disingenuous attempts by these elitists to pass off their ideology as just another religion or ideology which won't hurt anyone or infringe upon their liberties when the truth is that it only exists to infringe.

"The entire ESG movement comes directly from a distinct elitist view about the world: that it is over-populated and should be controlled by an elite cabal."
If "ESG" = "the world is over-populated and should be controlled by an elite cabal", companies that pursue that won't do well because almost no one on earth thinks that. I was taking it to mean companies trying to operate within values that presumably their shareholders would support. The examples from the article are the environment, supporting equality for all people, and supporting Christian values. Companies can support those without supporting the absurd elite cabal stuff.

The entire problem with the author's assertion, however, is that he tries to paint ESG as something other than a religion in and of itself! The entire ESG movement comes directly from a distinct elitist view about the world: that it is over-populated and should be controlled by an elite cabal.

He also glosses over the fact that much of ESG involves the coercion of other parties. If the corporations in question were Hobby Lobby or Dick's Sporting Goods or Chic-Fil-A or a multitude of others, that is one thing: their patrons can choose to continue their patronage or not. When the "corporations" include government-controlled banks, however, we cross over a significant dividing line.

The article seems to assume there is some basis for condemning ESG and that it's a quandary when when we encounter an ESG issue that we care about, religion in this example.

I see no reason whatsoever that businesses, regardless of whether they're structured as corporations, should not reflect their owners' values.