I have seen quite a few articles similiar to this in recent weeks about cities divesting from Iran as a method of increasing financial pressure on the regime...
BOCA RATON, Fla. — Florida became the first state in the nation Friday to have a law that its pension fund dollars cannot be invested in any companies doing business with Iran's energy sector and Sudan.
Several others states have divested pension funds with companies doing business in Sudan and some states have general policies against such investments. But none have yet put the action into law that divests funds from both countries.
"It's not just what's right for Florida. This is what's right for America, it's right for the world," Gov. Charlie Crist said after signing the bill. "It says that Iran, the world's leading sponsor of terror, we will not stand idly by anymore. And to Sudan and the genocide that is occurring there, we will not stand idly by and let that happen anymore, not Florida."
About $1 billion of Florida state money is currently invested with companies that do business with Sudan and Iran's energy sector, said state Sen. Ted Deutch, D-Boca Raton, the bill's sponsor.
While the state has about $134 billion in its pension account, the fourth largest in the country, the measure also covers an additional $16 billion in state money that Florida invests in various markets.
Under the new law, companies will first be given an opportunity to stop doing business with the two countries before state funds are pulled. Deutch said the state should be fully divested within a year.
"Tens of billions of dollars nationwide are invested in companies that are making it easier for the Iranian government to develop nuclear weapons and to make it easier for Iran to produce weapons that are being used against our troops," Deutch said.
TZ757300 From United States of America, joined Aug 2005, 2836 posts, RR: 7 Reply 1, posted (5 years 11 months 2 weeks 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 1019 times:
This is a very good idea, but do you really think that one state not investing in a country would do much harm?
Cfalk From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 2, posted (5 years 11 months 2 weeks 5 days ago) and read 1000 times:
Quoting TZ757300 (Reply 1): This is a very good idea, but do you really think that one state not investing in a country would do much harm?
Look at the numbers.
Quoting RJpieces (Thread starter): While the state has about $134 billion in its pension account, the fourth largest in the country, the measure also covers an additional $16 billion in state money that Florida invests in various markets.
Compared to Sudan's GDP, which is $25 billion. Florida has 5 times that in their state pension fund.
Mir From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 19722 posts, RR: 56 Reply 3, posted (5 years 11 months 2 weeks 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 984 times:
While this is a good idea, I thought that states couldn't regulate international commerce, which is what this seems like.
-Mir
7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
Cfalk From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 4, posted (5 years 11 months 2 weeks 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 980 times:
Quoting Mir (Reply 3): While this is a good idea, I thought that states couldn't regulate international commerce, which is what this seems like.
They are not regulating anything. They are simply puting in place a policy whereby monies controled by the state shall not be invested in a certain place. It is no different from a mutual fund deciding that they will not buy tobacco stocks. They are not telling other investors that they cannot do something.
Mir From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 19722 posts, RR: 56 Reply 5, posted (5 years 11 months 2 weeks 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 974 times:
Quoting Cfalk (Reply 4): They are not regulating anything. They are simply puting in place a policy whereby monies controled by the state shall not be invested in a certain place. It is no different from a mutual fund deciding that they will not buy tobacco stocks. They are not telling other investors that they cannot do something.
As I understand it, enacting a law is different from making a policy decision. If they wanted to stop investing in companies that do business with Iran or Sudan, would they really need a law to do that?
-Mir
7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
ME AVN FAN From Switzerland, joined May 2002, 13874 posts, RR: 28 Reply 6, posted (5 years 11 months 2 weeks 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 974 times:
Quoting TZ757300 (Reply 1): This is a very good idea, but do you really think that one state not investing in a country would do much harm?
-
A peculiar aspect is that they, at least up to the law, also cannot invest in companies doing business with Sudan, which means that they cannot do investments in most big NON-USA companies like BP (British Petroleum), Royal Dutch Shell (British-Dutch), Total (French), Unilever (British-Dutch), Renault, Peugeot-Citroen, FIAT, Daimler-Benz, BMW, VW, UBS, CreditSuisse, HoffRoche, Novartis, Nestle, Credit Lyonnais, Rhone-Poulenc, Bayer-Leverkusen, HSBC, etc .
-
Cfalk From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 7, posted (5 years 11 months 2 weeks 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 972 times:
Quoting Mir (Reply 5): As I understand it, enacting a law is different from making a policy decision. If they wanted to stop investing in companies that do business with Iran or Sudan, would they really need a law to do that?
Whereas in a company, all you might need is a decision at the board, in government, the technicality might be a law, the same way a budget earmark is a law, even though it does not operate even close to what we normally understand a law to be, such as a traffic law.
RJpieces From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 8, posted (5 years 11 months 2 weeks 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 947 times:
Quoting TZ757300 (Reply 1): This is a very good idea, but do you really think that one state not investing in a country would do much harm?
Yes. As Cfalk pointed out, it is a lot of money. And if enough cities and states follow Florida's lead, then the Mullahs in Iran might just feel their pockets being emptied and change their policies...
TZ757300 From United States of America, joined Aug 2005, 2836 posts, RR: 7 Reply 9, posted (5 years 11 months 2 weeks 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 943 times:
ME AVN FAN From Switzerland, joined May 2002, 13874 posts, RR: 28 Reply 10, posted (5 years 11 months 2 weeks 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 929 times:
Quoting RJpieces (Reply 8): And if enough cities and states follow Florida's lead, then the Mullahs in Iran might just feel their pockets being emptied and change their policies...
-
you may speak about lots of money, but the partners of the Iranians in Europe do NOT depend on that money, as most of that money is invested inside the USA anyway. So that those in Tehran do NOT feel anything.
-
Arrow From Canada, joined Jun 2002, 2582 posts, RR: 2 Reply 11, posted (5 years 11 months 2 weeks 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 924 times:
I still don't understand why this needs to be a law. Surely a government policy would be just as effective. When circumstances change, a policy can be changed fairly quickly to reflect the changed circumstances. Laws have to be amended or repealed, and that's much more difficult. I wonder, too, about the Constitutionality of a state legislating in an area of international commerce. Isn't that Congress's turf?
Quoting RJpieces (Reply 8): And if enough cities and states follow Florida's lead, then the Mullahs in Iran might just feel their pockets being emptied and change their policies...
Don't hold your breath. There will be a rush to fill that investment vaccuum by those who have no qualms about Iran's nuclear ambitions, but are keen to make a buck. It might succeed in getting some of those companies to rethink their investment strategies, but the mullahs won't be swayed. In my opinion, the chances of keeping Iran in line are much better with engagement than they are with blackballing them.
Never let the facts get in the way of a good story.
Mir From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 19722 posts, RR: 56 Reply 12, posted (5 years 11 months 2 weeks 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 885 times:
Quoting Arrow (Reply 11): I still don't understand why this needs to be a law. Surely a government policy would be just as effective. When circumstances change, a policy can be changed fairly quickly to reflect the changed circumstances. Laws have to be amended or repealed, and that's much more difficult. I wonder, too, about the Constitutionality of a state legislating in an area of international commerce. Isn't that Congress's turf?
That's what I wonder as well. I understand Cfalk's comparison to earmarks, but I can't help thinking that it's still a law (and thus is legislating), and I wonder if it would stand were it to be challenged.
-Mir
7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
Sponsor Message: 
From , joined Dec 1969, posts, 
From Switzerland, joined May 2002, 13874 posts, 
From Canada, joined Jun 2002, 2582 posts, 
Printer friendly format 
