Boycotts

Ages ago, back when my peers and I were still in college, my friend Phil laughed at an incident at George Mason University.   In the Brickskeller, the bar in the student union building, the couple in front of him were deciding what beer to buy.  Coors was immediately tossed out because “Coors is non-union”.  Killian’s Red?  Phil helpfully pointed out that Killian’s is made by Coors too.  Then he pointed out that the Brickskeller itself was run by Marriott, which was steadfastly non-union.  What to do?   Sorry, have to drink elsewhere.

Meanwhile, over at the University of Maryland, the students protested because UMCP had investments in South Africa, which at that time (late 1980s) still had apartheid.  Well, “the students” was more like “a handful of especially angry students” because the vast majority of us didn’t care.  The protest shanty on the Mall wound up being brushed aside as trash by maintenance workers who weren’t aware of the issues. 

More recently, the Internet helpfully clued us in on various US firms which did ample business with the Nazis during WWII.  In particular, Hugo Boss – which has a store in the WTC mall across from Mont Blanc – in fact designed the SA and SS uniforms.  We knew about Ford and IBM.   But all that is really moot, as Nazi Germany is long gone, even if these companies are still alive and well.  Drink Fanta to your heart’s content, Adolf isn’t getting your soda money.

Some boycotts seem to be because the company in question does things the boycotters don’t like.  Some seem to be because the company spends its money in ways the boycotters don’t like.  Either the boycotters are trying to change a corporate policy by withholding their business, or simply deprive an objectionable company – and/or its shareholders – of their money. 

I can’t say I have any principled objection to people who want to make sure their money doesn’t go to the wrong place.  It’s your money and you have a right to spend it any way you want to.   However, I would point out merely that as a practical matter, doing so is extremely difficult.  First there is the practical difficulty in ascertaining who owns what these days.  Conglomerates have bought up so much and continue to buy and sell companies, that at any given point it’s almost impossible to figure it out.  A corporation has millions of shareholders, each of whom may get dividends.  It might be more practical to focus your attention on companies which are closely held, like with the Koch Brothers, and avoiding trying to punish publicly held companies.  

Moreover, look at China.  Most of what we buy in the US these days is made in China, probably using labor practices we find abhorrent.  China is still a communist dictatorship and will continue to be so for the indefinite future.   Avoiding buying things made in China is practically impossible.  Much of our oil comes from the Middle East, including Saudi Arabia.   Citgo Oil comes from Venezuela.  Cars are made from parts made all over the world, no matter where they are ultimately assembled and built. 

Again, as a practical matter you’d have to live in a cave or commune and grow and make everything yourself.  That is not a sensible lifestyle in 2016. 

NFL.  Recently Colin Kaepernick caused a fuss by refusing to stand for the national anthem.  Many NFL fans were livid not just at CK but also the NFL itself for failing to discipline CK for this political statement.  My subjective impression is that the majority of players keep their views to themselves, and it's the marginally performing players like CK and Chris Kluwe who make a fuss, so they can later allege that a dismissal which would have occurred anyway due to their poor performance on the field was in fact politically motivated.  The best thing to do about CK and others like him is to ignore them.  

Do boycotts work?  Sometimes, but not consistently, and not commonly.  Occasionally they force companies to do things different ways.  They’re most effective if the company has no vested interest in a particular policy, but a company with deep pockets or a dedicated leader is generally unlikely to change its policies.  At the margin they sometimes work.  So it’s neither 100% nor 0%.