For some time I have been deeply concerned about the attitude towards conservative companies by banks, which have increasingly added to their corrupt cronyist behavior a distinctly political angle in their hiring and investing that only adds to their ill repute.  One of the difficulties faced by small farmers for some years is the difficulty in obtaining loans, since bias has long been a problem for businesses and types of businesses that do not meet the approval of a self-appointed cultural elite.  Rather than simply rail against an elite, which is easy to do but not particularly productive, I thought it would be worthwhile to encourage the building of an infrastructure that will take advantage of the gap between what is profitable and worthwhile and what is socially approved of, a niche that exists thanks to the behavior of our corrupt contemporary culture.  And where there are gaps and inefficiencies in the market, it means there is room for someone to take advantage of them.

Although banks are not a common interest of mine to write about, I do think about them from time to time [1], and my interest in this area in particular was prompted once again by seeing an advertisement on Spotify for the Bank of the West that sought to appeal to who they thought I was by urging the defunding of cigarettes, the funding of wind power, and the political use of investment to support a particular sociopolitical agenda.  To be sure, I am no particular friend to tobacco industry as a whole, but I do not believe it is wise or appropriate for cartels of banks to decide for themselves what types of businesses should and should be invested in.  There are plenty of businesses whose lines of business are unpleasant–one thinks of weapons manufacturers, for example–but whose businesses are ultimately necessary for the well-being of people or societies.  There are other companies whose products are obviously worthwhile but whose behaviors may be dubious–manufacturers, for example.  There are still other companies whose behavior is above board but whose politics run afoul of our times–one thinks of the Hobby Lobbies and In-And-Outs and Chick-Fil-As of our world.

How are we to deal with this?  Thanks to the politicized behavior of the Bank of the West and other companies, who are trying to make political capital out of their economically inefficient behaviors, there exists a situation where profitable and worthwhile businesses.  This gap can and should be filled by financial companies that are willing to fund companies that have fun afoul of social norms but which have a worthwhile purpose and which are profitable.  To be sure, it is not easy to go against the tide of our corrupt contemporary culture, but there is a considerable amount of money to be made in doing so, whether one looks at institutional banking or cryptocurrencies or some other form of financial institution.  There will need to be a fair amount of capital to invest in these firms, especially as it seems that there are many companies who fall into (at least temporary) trouble because of the inability of leftists to tolerate dissent to their misguided and mistaken worldview.  This intolerance provides room to operate, as long as someone has a strong constitution and does not desire positive publicity.

It is likely that this sort of company would best be served by remaining private in every sense of the word.  There is no need for a marketing budget, as that would only put the company in the crosshairs of a politically biased media that would love to tear it down with continual negative publicity.  There is likewise no desirability in having this be a publicly traded business, as that would only encourage a shareholder revolt in order to bring its practices in line with our blinkered cultural standard.  Knowledge about such a firm would likely be on a need to know basis, where the business reaches out to those who are facing political disapproval of their profitable and worthwhile business practices and who therefore face at least some vulnerability where their stock prices and ability to borrow money would be at odds with the essential profitability of their operations.  The general outsider attitude of the company would encourage those who wanted to support with their investment or their work a company that was providing valuable and important and unpopular help to companies that could otherwise be cowed into going along with the lemmings of our present age.  Our nation’s businesses deserve a better fate than that.

[1] See, for example:

When Banks Compete, You Win

Book Review: The Politically Incorrect Guide To Capitalism

Book Review: Crypto-Investing For Beginners

I Don’t Wanna Grow Up, I’m A Toys’R’Us Kid

First Impressions of St. Lucia

Your Money Needs An Ally