Money first?

On vacation, attending a wedding this weekend.

I'm about three-quarters of the way through Robert Rubin's book "In An Uncertain World" - his take, as Chair of the National Economic Council and then later Secretary of the Treasury under Clinton, on the ways of the world and the U.S.'s place in it. To me it's a phenomenal read, particularly given that he is a lifelong Democrat who has always looked at issues through the lens of what he calls "probabilistic" thinking - that is, no outcome is certain, and every issue or problem (or potential investment) can be evaluated somewhat analytically to determine a reasonable probability associated with its outcome.

What really struck me, however, is Rubin's articulation of his epiphany: money, and the generation of it, is fundamentally the starting point for effectively participating in constructive social, political, and economic change. Referring to his 20-something years as an arbitrage broker and then senior partner at Goldman Sachs:

Goldman Sachs was my fundamental and overriding involvement. From that strong base, I was able to reach out into various directions - nonprofit and charitable organizations, professional associations, politics, and eventually, a second career in Washington.

If I could ask Mr. Rubin one question, it would be:

If our capitalist socioeconomic system is to remain the rule of the land, and if indeed money is the ticket to affecting positive change, is there any place for socially conscious investing and/or restraint? In simple terms, can you reconcile making $1 million from tobacco company stock dividends, and then spending those "earnings" on education regarding the adverse effects of tobacco?

(I ask only because it doesn't seem very efficient.)