Normally merit arguments are a problem. Its much better to think along the lines of "to each according to their need from each according to their ability," because among other things merit is a crapshoot and human need isn't and we don't need to victimize to magnify life's glory pageant. But here it seems apt. If ICE makers can't get the right people or they are all taken by Tesla they and especially their shareholders deserve that fate. As for those who are passively invested- passive investing is wrong. It makes as much sense as regularly indiscriminately firing guns into the air on a mass scale. In practice it amounts to mass aggregate money laundering and people who are part of that can't say they aren't complicit. But lets say its part of a managed situation- like a pension or an insurance fundsl slush (which shouldn't be allowed- the capital rot arguments are nonsense,) each customer should be able to say which very precise industries the monies are not invested in and the list should be complete and required at account opening and amendable by the customer at any time. Each banking customer should have the same right. Violation should result in loss of charter, or in something like forefeiture of x profit years- take the highest of the last five most profitable years and extract that much for of the next successive 5 years. Because its like F your useless 'profit' if its based on criminality and crime.
