Page 1 Page 2 Page 3 Page 4 Page 5 Page 6 Page 7 Page 8 Page 9 Page 10 Page 11 Page 12 Page 13 Page 14 Page 15 Page 16 Page 17 Page 18 Page 19 Page 20 Page 21 Page 22 Page 23 Page 24 Page 25 Page 26 Page 27 Page 28 Page 29 Page 30 Page 31 Page 32 Page 33 Page 34 Page 35 Page 36 Page 37 Page 38 Page 39 Page 40 Page 41 Page 42 Page 43 Page 44 Page 45 Page 46 Page 47 Page 48 Page 49 Page 50 Page 51 Page 52 Page 53 Page 54 Page 55 Page 56 Page 57 Page 58 Page 59 Page 60 Page 61 Page 62 Page 63 Page 64 Page 65 Page 66 Page 67 Page 68 Page 69 Page 70 Page 71 Page 72 Page 73 Page 74 Page 75 Page 76 Page 77 Page 78 Page 79 Page 8013 tion may require illuminating total economic returns and dealing with the drain on funda- mental economic productivity of “net energy minus“ investments and players. How do we get rid of the people and enterprises that intentionally drive total economic returns into the negative? Better yet, how do we make money doing it? More bluntly, how do we start to price and delete evil from the system? Is this deletion not a better approach then codependent cleaning up in a way that supports and facili- tates the continuing existence of evil? In some situations, more capital investment can break up a monopoly position or shift the state of play in economic warfare. In other situations, however, more capital investment simply subsi- dizes an already harmful situation. Providing easy access to expensive housing and consumer credit to low-income communities, as a tempo- rary replacement for savings and income, has certainly helped no one save the people profiting on depopulation, gentrification, and fraud at the expense of both communities and global investors. Fifty years of belief that more capital is always good has produced an economy highly dependent on organized crime, government subsidy, and credit with negative total economic returns. Indeed, the rise in organized crime and the proliferation of ETIs are connected. A review of the website for the Federal Reserve Bank of New York will show a series of community in- vestments. Any reasonable estimate of the orga- nized crime and corrupt government credit and subsidy flows that “run“ (or disappear) through these neighborhoods would bolster the public relations logic of “doing good“ with a tiny trickle of the potential profits. ETIs essentially function as bribes or payoffs that cause more damage in a place by moving it even further from fundamental economics and real productivity. This truth may hurt. However, it is impossible to sustain a positive total economic return without it. In addition, ETIs are also used to promote the brand and social respectability of dirty players, thus moving us away from the conditions nec- essary for “tit for tat“ players to emerge as those who attract capital. Crime pays. It is socially respectable. Finally, ETIs are also used as a way of shutting off capital to local players. In 1999, I had lunch with the general counsel to the chairman of an important Congressional committee overseeing community development. He told me in no un- certain terms that my ideas for providing small business access to equity capital would not be permitted. In fact, the only capital that would be allowed to flow into minority neighborhoods would go through national not-for-profit tax shelter pools. [CAF Note: these investments were often marketed to SRI funds] This preference meant that small business people would be shut off from access to credit while do-gooders “help- ing” the neighborhood would be granted a monopoly position. ETIs, in short, were being used as part of a tool- kit to control and manipulate the cost of capital within a place at the cost of honest small busi- ness people and ethical entrepreneurs.” I described our last report to the pension fund advisory board in 1997 in my online book Dillon Read & Co Inc. and the Aristocracy of Stock Prof- its, as follows: The Hamilton Securities Group had a subsidi- ary charged with taking our data as it developed on individual transactions and portfolio strategy assignments and using it to develop a new ap- proach to investment. We sought to help inves- tors understand the impact of their investments on people and places and on a wider society as a strategy to identify opportunities to lower risks and enhance investment returns.[83]This included understanding how to reduce the de- pendencies of municipalities and small business and farming on debt and increase their ability to finance with equity. Indeed, easy, subsidized access to equity financing is one of the reasons that large companies have grown so powerful and taken over so much market share from small businesses. Access to equity investment for “ ... the only capital that would be al- lowed to flow into minority neighbor- hoods would go through national not- for-profit tax shelter pools... This pref- erence meant that small business peo- ple would be shut off from access to credit while do-gooders “helping” the neigh- borhood would be granted a monopoly position. ”