Divestment pushed South Africa to abolish apartheid.

Yeah, but countries != companies.

Divesting from SA meant smaller tax base, fewer jobs and a fall from international prominence.

Divesting from a company/industry means that the stock price may fall. Assuming that the actual profitability of the company remains unchanged all divesting did was make the stock a better buy.

Why wouldn't SA companies simply become a better buy?

Because people actually stopped buying the products along with not investing in companies. The equivalent with fossil fuel investment would be that people actually stop using fossil fuels, which isn't what happens with divestment.

I don't know any activists who feel or behave in the way the activists in your comment do.

All the activists you know don't want felons to get jobs in the private sector?

Edit: Also, can I introduce you to this poster: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20955714

From my own experience, this is not true!

When most people talk about "Mass transit" I think they mean trains... subways... buses...

I hope!

He'll just nominate Elliot Abrams to replace him.

It should be Opt-In.

Not Opt-Out.

Jonathan Franzen is not an expert in the possible effects of climate change.

He's an expert at writing novels in which everyone sounds like they have a Creative Writing MFA from Swarthmore.

This is silly.

no.

because its not true anymore?

look in this story for "expense report"

https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2018/10/22/did-uber-steal...