The UK's Independent newspaper reports that "Last month American warships fired $65.8m worth of Tomahawk missiles within just 24 hours of each other".
www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/with-usled-strikes-on-isis-intensifying-its-a-good-time-to-b... The article focuses on the notion that war creates tragedy and loss for so many - except for the weapons manufacturers who see their profits escalate.
"Share prices are soaring in America for those who produce the coalition bombs and missiles and drones and aircraft participating in this latest war which – for all who are involved (except for the recipients of the bombs and missiles and those they are fighting) – is Hollywood from start to finish.
Shares in Lockheed Martin – maker of the “All for One and One for All” Hellfire missiles – are up 9.3 per cent in the past three months. Raytheon – which has a big Israeli arm – has gone up 3.8 per cent. Northrop Grumman shares swooped up the same 3.8 per cent. And General Dynamics shares have risen 4.3 per cent."
So, with such increases in share prices, it could be seen as a good financial move to invest in companies such as Lockheed Martin. While many people would steer clear of such money making opportunities on 'moral' grounds, what if the money made was to be used for good causes? Would that justify the questionable investment?
What if a charity invested in Lockheed Martin or other options such as tobacco companies? What if they used that money to do good; to improve the lives of those in need? To feed the hungry? To work for human rights? Would that be ok?
What do you think?
Image sourceIt is proposed that as long as charities use their money for good causes the source of the money should not be important