The banks and world governments are giving businesses and individuals a social justice/environmentalist credit score. A low score could keep you from getting car loans, medications, etc.
ESG Credit Scores - This should scare hell out of everyone
- Thread starter BigSexyCat
- Start date
The banks and world governments are giving businesses and individuals a social justice/environmentalist credit score. A low score could keep you from getting car loans, medications, etc.
Your only problem is listening to Glenn Beck. His entire schtick has always been spinning up conspiracy theories. Go back over the years and see how many of his scary warnings have actually panned out.
FYI, ESG scores have absolutely nothing to do with personal credit, or some score OF you as an individual. There have long been people who want to make investment decisions informed by corporations' behaviors. This is just a tool that's supposed to help investors to make those decisions if they care to. One of the explanations conservatives have long given for how capitalism can address social/environmental/etc. issues without government regulation is that customers and investors can punish companies who act in a way they don't like and support companies who do act in a way they like. That's all this is. Even though I wouldn't trust an investment company to do my research for me on corporate behavior.
FYI, ESG scores have absolutely nothing to do with personal credit, or some score OF you as an individual. There have long been people who want to make investment decisions informed by corporations' behaviors. This is just a tool that's supposed to help investors to make those decisions if they care to. One of the explanations conservatives have long given for how capitalism can address social/environmental/etc. issues without government regulation is that customers and investors can punish companies who act in a way they don't like and support companies who do act in a way they like. That's all this is. Even though I wouldn't trust an investment company to do my research for me on corporate behavior.
Uh, if I was lending someone money for a business I would absolutely want to know what the risk that they say something racist and get put out of business would be. This makes good business sense IMO.
Of course if I had a history of saying racist things in my personal life and on social media I might be a bit nervous, but I don't.
Of course if I had a history of saying racist things in my personal life and on social media I might be a bit nervous, but I don't.
It's a damn social credit score similar to what China has installed. It's not difficult or far reaching to believe. What discredits Beck in your view is that he's a Republican thus he has to be wrong. IMO you didn't bother to watch the video. You took ESG credit scores put it in Google and read the first Dem publication that echoed what you wanted to hear and conformed to your beliefs.
I did watch the video. But whatever dude, I'm clearly not going to convince you of anything or even have productive conversation with you about it. Can't say I'm interested in trying with somebody whose first move is to make assumptions about me rather than listening. Go ahead and piss your pants in fear of big brother. Glenn Beck has certainly been telling you to do so for a long time now. He'll be right any day now. I'll be over here laughing at Glenn, and at you.
I would like for what you say to be true but I guess you have more faith in the ruling class than I do. Besides you more or less generalized your whole argument and didn't really dispel any of the proof Beck presented.
Do you agree that there is business risk in the United States tied to social issues and the environment?
I just got my credit score and it’s 95 which is a solid A from what I can tell.
Beck didn't give proof of anything. He just asserted things, and made claims that it was based on "their documents." Show me the evidence and I'll examine it. Glenn Beck is known to, time and time again, spin up stories like this and they've never been true before. Show me any documentation that banks will make decisions on lending you money based on your personal ESG score, and I'll take read it with an open mind.
I agree with your first statement. However, in today's society, we've seen many examples of racist statements from non-white Americans but it's assumed that only white (and, sometimes, only white men) can be racist. I personally don't believe that. I believe that anyone can be a racist. So, will this ESG credit score be applied equally across all races, genders, religious beliefs, sexual orientations or will there be a slant to favor one group over another, i.e., discrimination? We see reverse discrimination in college admissions all the time. Will this be another weapon to continue to set one race/gender/sexual orientation/religious belief against a different one? I, for one, am skeptical that this isn't just another social engineering ploy so that everyone is forced to say/act/speak/think the exact same way or suffer the consequences.
Some of you, particularly the OP, are gigantic, terrified pussies.
The others are dickless eunuchs like PTI.
None of those involve what's being alleged, which is you as an individual having your creditworthiness evaluated based on some sort of personal ESG score. All of that is about evaluating business risk based on these factors.
![[laughing]](http://l.yimg.com/j/assets/img/emoticons/classic/laugh.r191677.gif "Laughing [laughing]")
The dominos are being put in place for this to become a reality which is what Beck was saying. Merrill Lynch is putting the ESG scores on clients statements and companies are having their interest rates altered based on this score.
Business risk base on social justice? based on climate propaganda? You really don't see anything wrong with this and the fact that it could put people out of business if they don't meet some sort of woke standard?
Last edited:
From everything I can find about these, it's entirely about risk management in investing, there's no way to apply the metrics in it to an individual, and your personal score for your investments is akin to any risk analysis metric for investors. In theory, companies who score better on this are safer investments and there's some evidence of this, it looks like? Regardless, it's consistently referred to as an analysis of risks and big investment banks make decisions based on their bottom line, not on "wokeness."
Time will prove one of us right or wrong, FWIW, I sincerely hope you're the one that's right on this issue.
WildcatfaninOhio
All-American
It all sounds very scary, so I choose to believe it.
As a small business owner all I can say is I’ve been clamoring for more government forms and approvals that are subjective in nature. The more government and regulatory crap the better!!
As a bank it is going to be applied to the risk of losing business. So possibly. If someone says something that pisses a bunch of people off and they lose all their business that is a risk to getting a loan repaid. I don't think this is some kind of standard to favor someone over another it's just a score to weed out bad debt. It doesn't mean what you're implying.
As someone who, I believe, works in insurance, you don't see this going in any other direction?
If your business is located within proximity of a large black or anarchist population, then could your score be lowered for the risk of having your business looted or burned in times of unrest? If your store is looted or burned, then you will be less likely to pay your loans too.
Car insurance is much more expensive in cities. The likelihood of accidents is much higher with more cars on the road, but some people might say it's higher because the expectation of accidents is disproportionate by race. Will these scores be like insurance and also be disproportionate based on culture and skin color?
Will my theoretical score increase if I donate time and/or money to certain organizations and causes? Will prospective employers want to check out my score before making an offer of employment, much like many employers already do with credit checks? What if nobody wants to hire people because their score is low and that forces people into homelessness or other forms of desperation? Isn't that just recycling the same problems that our society already faces with people who are trying to rehabilitate from criminal records and drug addictions?
Why open this can of worms?
This is not a government thing. This is an investment and financial firm tool from what I can see. It helps investors better identify risks associated with their investments. The E is environmental, the S is social, and the G is governance.
Again I want to state these are not ratings the government is mandating these are ratings that financial firms are demanding from the credit rating agencies so they can better identify risks to their investments. This is not some arbitrary social justice decision. In fact if your money was on the line I would imagine you would want to know what some of these risks are and be thankful for the information.
Let me give you an example. You may not think global warming is anything to get worked up about and not want any action taken by the government to stop it. But you damn sure better want to know how rising temperatures and oceans are going to impact the companies you invest in because it's happening whether you believe in it or not and it could affect your investments.
Because these are real risks to real money and investors want to know. When our money is on the line we don't close our eyes and pretend like things like global warming, social inequity, etc don't exist because we don't want to deal with them or our favorite politician says they aren't any big deal.
What does global warming have to do with burning, looting, and other forms anarchism? Do you pretend like that doesn't exist and those aren't real risks to real money and property? Do you believe that a new scoring system won't lead to other forms of inequity?
If I don't drive a Tesla, then will that lower my score? What if I can't afford a Tesla?
I'm positive that risk of loss due to looting is considered by financiers and insurance companies. That is a big risk as well. I think you should quit listening to conservative radio and talking heads. They are generally fear mongers and anger creators. This is a much smaller deal than you are making it out to be.
Global warming is a risk to investments in all sorts of businesses, but you're right it has nothing to do with rioting and looting. These are all Environmental risks though which means they risks of the environment the business operates in. They must be considered in financing the industry or business.
The car you drive doesn't matter. These things aren't personal credit rating devices. They are used to rate bonds and debt instruments for large corporations. Stop being chicken little.
Last edited:
I'm much more suspicious of people who can't answer the questions that I ask, like you, than I am of any talking head that I don't listen to anyway.
Again, what if people can't afford a Tesla? Or solar panels or anything else? Are you advocating for the government to be responsible for supplying all modes of transportation and installing solar panels on every home? Will people be punished for charging their iPhones too much and using more energy than the government has rationed for us as individuals?
I want to point out that those defending this system are completely glossing over the fact that the left has now weaponized financial risk and incentive based on whether or not you agree with their political ideology.
Don’t agree with BLM? Well that means you may be subjected to an angry leftist Twitter mob, or worse burned down, which may impact your business so we’re going to punish you instead.
Authoritarians. No way to spin it.
Don’t agree with BLM? Well that means you may be subjected to an angry leftist Twitter mob, or worse burned down, which may impact your business so we’re going to punish you instead.
Authoritarians. No way to spin it.
You added this after I had hit reply. OK, so what about this?
Will these ESG scores on large corporations put pressure on those corporations to hire people who only have certain behaviors and identities?
Companies already get reduced health insurance premiums or rebates for having a healthy workforce that reaches a certain level of participation from its employees. I believe that Humana has a Bronze, Silver, Gold, and Platinum (whatever) health achievement status for individuals, and if companies achieve a 50%, 70%, or 90% participation of Gold status or better achievement, for example, then they will receive a significant cost savings at the different tiers. True or false? I already know that the answer is true, but maybe your stance is, "Well, the government should be paying for everybody's health insurance anyway. So the gov't will take care of that."
OK, but what if an employer asks me what kind of car I drive? If I drive a gas vehicle over an electric car, then would that give them reason to discriminate against me? My gas vehicle would "not uphold the standard of an environmentally conscious company." Would that be reason for them to fire me or deny me employment? Are there legal protections for gas vehicle owners? No. But maybe your stance is, "Well, all cars are going to be electric in 10-15 years anyway, so that's not going to even be an issue."
OK, but what if an employer sees that I have a Blue Lives Matter bumper sticker on my electric car? Would they have reason to fire me because it could be perceived as insensitive and counter to their social justice score? It would look bad for them to have cars on the company lot that protestors might have an issue against.
What if my children go to a private/charter school that does not have a certain diversity score or social justice curriculum? Would that reflect badly on me as a parent and be used as evidence of being a possible racist if my child's school makes a few co-workers "uncomfortable"?
What if the governance team of my corporation has selected charities that they want the company to support? Will I be pressured into doing an automatic payroll deduction for that charity/cause? Could I be fired or on the list of for the next round of layoffs if I don't? Nobody could really know that's the reason/final straw they laid you off, but wouldn't you feel pressured to do so to have that added layer of job security?
This is not a simple, "Oh, it only affects the corporate big-wigs and investors." No, it has trickle down effects that are passed onto the expendable employees. It creates entirely new factors of discrimination based on outward social identity.
Last edited:
Humana gives companies/employees discounts on their premiums for engaging in a wellness plan, in addition to giving the employees hundreds of dollars in free gift cards, rewards, etc. The specifics of the discount are mostly tied to the size of the employer group and the funding arrangement they have set up.
It’s all one giant conspiracy, of course.
It’s all one giant conspiracy, of course.
I have to applaud your responses in this thread. You make great points and speak truth to a real issue. Unfortunately in some cases, it falls on people who have submerged themselves in a cult like political party who put party over facts and truth.
I don't think S&P cares about your employer having you on their payroll or what your political beliefs are. I believe they care whether your employer is exposed to social, environmental, and governance risks.
What they may be concerned about with regards to you personally is if you are an executive and you are engaged in discriminatory hiring practices. That is about it.
Now your employeray fire you if you are arrested for looting a store or storming the Capitol or you drive drunk or any other number of illegal or risky behaviors but that is pretty well understood by everyone.
No one cares what kind of car you drive with regards to your company. The government may regulate what kind of cars we drive in the future or tax us higher if we want to drive a big truck like I do, but that has nothing to do with ESG credit ratings by investment banking firms.
What these firms are looking at is what extra risks are companies under like the Chemours plant in Louisville that emits more carbon than all of the motor vehicles in Louisville combined. Companies like that can't be rated just on their profits and cash flow as they are probably at significant risk of having to make substantial and costly changes to their production processes. This they would have a lower credit rating than a company with similar finances that is not facing those risks.
The biggest deal is still cash flow, but investors want all the risk sussed out, not just most of them. For instance if Deutsche Bank had known Donald Trump was going to run for President and piss of 55% of Americans who will never buy anything from him again do you think they would have loaned him $400 million? I mean love him or hate him that matters when he owes you money on properties that depend on American consumers using them. On the other hand if you wanted to loan him money to start a conservative TV station it may decrease the risk associated with that because he has a built in audience.
Hey there Riddler, you used 15 freaking questions marks. Jesus, make a point instead of asking a bunch of stupid ass questions.
Similar threads
