The idea that I can't criticize pathological behaviors by investors because I myself invest in things makes about as much sense as saying I can't criticize bad US policies because I live in the US.

You are the investor causing the pathological behavior. A very large part of wall street is investors like you that just have a little bit in their retirement accounts.

Do you vote the proxy for all the funds in your 401k? Do you understand how your vote affects the above - it all does.

there's a way to be an ethical investor - pick a 401(k) fund that invests in ethical businesses (according to whatever ethical standard you hold).

This might not be an option for everyone, of course.

Wrong. I am not telling any company to treat their employees like crap to squeeze an extra penny of profit out of them.

But you are because you own the fund that in turns owns the company.

It might not be your intent, and you might not have enough of a vote to stop it, but you are still doing it. (sort of like Americans opposed to the current foreign policy are still at fault for it)

How am I at fault for a foreign policy if I voted for its antithesis (or, perhaps more likely, nobody with that position stood for election)?

No. I reject your idea in its entirety.

Love it or leave it! /s

'Every nation, in every region, now has a decision to make. Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists.' Bush.

I don't think you can really equate "activist investors" with workaday people with IRAs.

Take a look at how much of a company's stock is owned by institutional investors. A lot of that money comes from people's pensions, 401Ks, IRAs, etc.

I'm not disputing that; what I am disputing is that such investors are basically the same as Carl Icahn.

short-term boosterism is the cause of more than a few problems in our economic system

There is always a need to balance both the short term and the long term. I rather doubt anyone who has retired and is drawing on their retirement investments will be thinking long term since, to be morbid, they simply aren't going to be around in the long term.

Somebody who is currently living off of their investments should probably have moved most of them out of volatile investments like stock anyway.

who the fuck has a 401K and is interested in short term returns?

You know at some point the 401k is supposed to be paying your bills, yes? That's its raison d'être. When you have investments paying your bills, you might understandably be focused on those investments yielding some immediate returns. Maybe to pay for that leaky roof, or broken down AC...

Why in the world would you have more than a token amount of assets in stock if you are nearing or in the middle of retirement?

Any short term returns from the market should be remarkably small per individual managed by a firm. It's the long term growth that you're banking on when you prepare for retirement years in advance.

The fund managers for the funds in that 401k.

I think your comment is a non-sequitur. I am highly invested in my 401K and IRA but I would much rather have returns over the next 10 years than the next 3 months.

If your retirement is 3 months away, then sure you should be thinking short term, which actually means you should be moving away from stocks entirely. Investors that are really that short term should be in bonds or cash.

Your comment rests on the implicit premise that investors were getting no return worth talking about. There's a big space between not getting and adequate return and squeezing out every last bit of profit.