I am of the opinion that the very concept of commissioned sales is cancerous, because of the obvious perverse incentives it sets up. Whenever I am forced to buy form commissioned salespeople (car, furniture/mattress, insurance, interacting with an 'advisor' at my bank), I can never take that salesperson's advice at face value. I always wonder if I'm the mark in some institutionalized or just regular straight-up con. I will (and sometimes do) pay extra to avoid the feeling of needing a shower after such 'interactions'.
It's self-correcting. At 6%, more interest will be shown by other sources of funding, who will then enter the game and lower the interest rate as a result.
The world is awash with capital right now, money sitting around idle, looking for a place to be invested. Just look at how much money is being thrown at startups, how low interest rates are for countries who were bankrupt or on the verge of bankruptcy <10 years ago. This scheme is guaranteed to fail right now. Maybe in another credit crunch it has a chance?
Your argument does not show that it won't go up, but only that it won't go from 5% to 15% but rather find some balance at, say, 8%. Mission accomplished, coal is now at a disadvantage compared to what it was before.
> The world is awash with capital right now, money sitting around idle, looking for a place to be invested.
And considering that coal is not doing well (and thus has to offer higher rates), much of that money will be invested elsewhere. Sure, some will still be invested in coal but less than it would be if you didn't do that.
This type of argument pops up often: "but there is a small counteracting effect, so it will balance out to not do anything". No, it does not work like that.
>Your argument does not show that it won't go up, but only that it won't go from 5% to 15% but rather find some balance at, say, 8%. Mission accomplished, coal is now at a disadvantage compared to what it was before.
Or it will settle at 5.01% due to the fact that a middle eastern sovereign wealth fund or two will be bigger than all investors who sign up to this scheme put together.
>And considering that coal is not doing well (and thus has to offer higher rates), much of that money will be invested elsewhere. Sure, some will still be invested in coal but less than it would be if you didn't do that.
But that has nothing to do with global warming or ethics of coal. It's mostly due to natural gas becoming so much more economical, which is mostly due to the shale gas revolution. It's a huge benefit to the planet, but mostly an incidental one. Of course politicians and energy companies will still use it to pat themselves on the back very very publicly.
>This type of argument pops up often: "but there is a small counteracting effect, so it will balance out to not do anything". No, it does not work like that.
Depends on the scale of the pro-acting effect. My guess is that the effect of 'ethical investment' due to ethics/global warming alone, and not due to fundamentals of energy markets that have to do with prices of natural gas, will be close to zero. If I'm wrong, it'll only be because a majority of investors who would have otherwise invested in coal (important distinction) jump on board this campaign, or close to a majority.
> Or it will settle at 5.01% due to the fact that a middle eastern sovereign wealth fund or two will be bigger than all investors who sign up to this scheme put together.
Which did not sign up at 5%, but at 5.01% it is now totally worth it... . No, it is entirely unreasonable to expect that if the current large investors drop out they will be more than replaced.
It might be the case and even likely that Hohn does not achieve the first step, but if he can convince a few large investors the effect will be much bigger than 5.01%.
> If I'm wrong, it'll only be because a majority of investors who would have otherwise invested in coal (important distinction) jump on board this campaign, or close to a majority.
>It might be the case and even likely that Hohn does not achieve the first step, but if he can convince a few large investors the effect will be much bigger than 5.01%.
I don't recall any anger. Hacker News is in the 'focus on facts' phase of responding to mass panic, and I believe we won't move on to the 'resignation' phase anytime soon.
Huh, the only comments I saw about "megadosing" were explicitly refuting the notion of megadosing vitamin C, and the effect that that quackery has had on the science. Are we reading the same comments?
If it inconveniences a lot fewer drivers than the number of cyclists and public transit users who benefit, then it's a clear-cut and uncontroversial net win, isn't it?
>people with disabilities, older people with problems with walking, pregnant women
Are precisely the kinds of people less likely to be able to drive. Accessible and convenient public transit is a better option for them, provided of course that it's accessible and convenient throughout their journey - that means sidewalks, intersections, transit stops, building access, etc.
If families with 4 kids don't need a vehicle at all, it's a huge financial benefit for them. Here in Canada a mini-boat on wheels large enough to accommodate such a family is friggin' expensive. Cities tend to have free or very cheap tickets for kids, so if you can get away with doing commutes by transit and have a Corolla for weekend errands and groceries that you don't have to shove all 4 into, you win $1000s every year.
I'd like to add another thing to consider: good urbanism, specifically mixed-use development, which reduce the distances immensely.
I live in Montreal and I use my old used "mini-boat on wheels" maybe twice a month to see my family outside the city. I intend to sell it actually. I travel to work on public transport because most of the city is covered 24/7 with a pretty acceptable bus and metro.
Everything is close enough that I can simply walk, even in winter. There are 5 schools, 4 parks, 3 pharmacies, 2 grocery stores, a bunch of shops and restaurants, two medical clinics, two metro entrances, several of my friends, etc, all within 15 minutes on foot.
And I don't even live in a "dense" area. It's actually considered a food desert compared to the rest of the city.
King St. in Toronto is a kind of hybrid project[0] where cars have local access, but must turn either right or left at a bunch of intersections. On-street parking is gone. It's been a resounding success specifically for local businesses, which is interesting (and not surprising to me, but opposite of what you say happened in Chicago). More comparable climate to Chicago too.
It's you. That half the world has no better healthcare system than Iran is a sad reflection on the state of healthcare in world, not an implication that Iran's dilapidated and overstretched healthcare system\* is a good one. Combine that with their authoritarian government with zero communications skills and no credibility due to being habitual liars, and we should place no stock in their reassurances/projections, and very little stock even in their hard-to-fuck-up stats like # of deaths.
\* I should say this is anecdata, based on comments by several Iranian friends and acquaintances.
I'm not defending Iran's healthcare system. The info I was able to dig up places it as above average, which means that more than 50% of world population will be affected just as bad or worse. Dismissing Iran's data point as not useful takes a specific viewpoint that I consider not empathic enough for my tastes, but everyone is free to disagree.
Central bank ≠ treasury.