The Market Ticker
Commentary on The Capital Markets- Category [Environment]

One of the central necessary actions I put forward in Leverage is that the United States must implement wage and environmental parity tariffs to prevent companies from arbitraging not only slave-labor conditions in third world nations but also to prevent them from exporting intentional destruction of the environment as a means of evading perfectly-legitimate laws intended to prevent despoiling the land, water and air in the United States.

This perspective is often countered with the claim that I'm xenophobic or some other bit of twaddle.  But you need only look at the facts to discern that this is exactly what we need, and the reason we need it is that American companies have made a business out of poisoning people on purpose -- that is, well beyond the point at which a particular hazard was identified and they have moved production offshore and to third-party and third-world producers in order to keep doing so even after being slammed in the United States.

In epidemiology, follow-up studies usually get bigger and tougher, and for that reason they often contradict one another. But by December 1992, something rare had happened. All three studies—all paid for by the industry—showed similar results: roughly a doubling of the rate of miscarriages for thousands of potentially exposed women. This time the industry reacted quickly. SIA pointed to a family of toxic chemicals widely used in chipmaking as the likely cause and declared that its companies would accelerate efforts to phase them out. IBM went further: It pledged to rid its global chip production of them by 1995.

But IBM did not do so.  Nor did anyone else.  They instead offshored the production to places where such regulations didn't exist and kept using chips made with the same toxic chemicals and processes for 20 years.

There is literally nobody among federal and state prosecutors who will do the right thing here, which is to charge every single one of these firms that so-shifted production and buying on purpose so as to keep using these substances and exposing people to them criminally, and their CEO's with involuntary manslaughter.

This, folks, is why wage and environmental parity tariffs are not just a good idea they're essential.  If we can't count on the government's law enforcement arms to do the right thing and bring criminal charges when they intentionally shift production to places where regulation is non-existent and the air, water, ground and people are poisoned as a routine way of making a living then the only other recourse we have is to make doing so uneconomic by enforcing tariffs that eliminate the financial advantage to using these means or production in the first place.

This isn't, in the main, about money.

It's about the willful and intentional destruction of people for profit exactly as if you literally ate them.

View this entry with comments (opens new window)
 

2017-06-01 22:28 by Karl Denninger
in Environment , 1737 references
[Comments enabled]  

You can't possibly be serious.

The screamfest over Trump's withdrawal from the Paris accord is amusing beyond words.  Among the complainers is Tim Cook who I remind you makes his iPhones in China which was immune from mandatory carbon emission cuts.  If Tim Cook cared about carbon emissions he would make them somewhere else.

But he hasn't and he doesn't.

Then there's Elon Musk, who stomped off in "indignation" when the announcement was made.  The truth is a bit more complex; Musk is a welfare queen and Tesla, including all that it produces (batteries, solar panels and roofs and of course cars) is utterly dependent on both government subsidy and force to make you buy them under penalty of paying more.  Tesla loses money on every car it sells and without both government subsidies and a belief they will continue the company is literally at risk of collapse.

Don't take my word for that, by the way -- if you're too lazy to read the company financials for yourself Musk himself has said so.

“I do believe this market cap is higher than we have any right to deserve," Musk said to The Guardian. "This is not some situation where, for example, we are just greedy capitalists who decided to skimp on safety in order to have more profits and dividends and that kind of thing. It’s just a question of how much money we lose. And how do we survive? How do we not die and have everyone lose their jobs?” 

Got it folks?  Tesla is a money-losing firm.  It always has been.  There are no profits.  It exists because it can steal from the taxpayer and Wall Street believes it will be able to continue to do so and thus lets Tesla float bond issues in the market.

So is Musk truly indignant for the future of the planet or is the real problem that he smells brimstone and the end of his charade?  It's not like you have to guess as Musk has told you in plain English (both in interviews and in his quarterly filings) what the truth is.

Of course Goldman's Blankfein had to weigh in.  He, of course, was looking forward to financing "opportunities" (underwriting bonds and similar) for the trillions of dollars that America was going to be forced to give to other nations such as India.  You don't really think they'll just wait for the money, do you?  Oh no, here comes Goldman with the "opportunity" to get that money now -- for a price, of course.  That just went "poof" like a fart in the wind.

The list goes on, of course.

The truth about the Paris Accord is that it was a scam from the outset, just like Kyoto.  I wrote on it at the time.  The fundamental scam is that it did not impose hard caps on the plurality of the population of the world -- specifically, India and China.  Neither had hard caps nor requirements to spend.  India, for example, only had to make "reforms" if they were paid to do it by the Untied States and others.  Otherwise, no obligation.  China -- same deal.

Of course India and China are the two most-populous nations.  Between them they're over a third of the world's count of people and India's population continues to rapidly expand.  Both China and India will eventually start to see population declines, but not for a good long while, and in any event they'll still be about a third of the planet by 2100.

Exempting either of these nations from any so-called "carbon limits" makes the entire exercise a joke.

I maintain that none of the people backing this crap actually believe that (1) the climate is warming and (2) humans are responsible for it.  Remember that you have to believe both; if you believe the first but not the second then nothing we do matters, so both are essential.

If you believe both and you also believe the impact will be catastrophic you have to be flat-out nuts to exclude from carbon limits the fastest-growing nation and between it and the next-largest the two that comprise more than a third of all the people on the planet.  

It's clear that if that block of people continue to rapidly emit more CO2 rather than cut it back you will fail.

Therefore any support of such a pact is obviously a scam.

Today, the scam went down in flames -- and so did the pipe dreams of quite a few CEOs and banksters, among them Blankfein and Musk.

You're going to Hell boys, and while there might be some kegs down there I understand there are no taps.

PS: Tesla is a zero.

View this entry with comments (opens new window)
 

Main Navigation
MUST-READ Selection:
A One-Sentence Bill To Force The Health-Care Issue

Full-Text Search & Archives
Archive Access

Legal Disclaimer

The content on this site is provided without any warranty, express or implied. All opinions expressed on this site are those of the author and may contain errors or omissions.

NO MATERIAL HERE CONSTITUTES "INVESTMENT ADVICE" NOR IS IT A RECOMMENDATION TO BUY OR SELL ANY FINANCIAL INSTRUMENT, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO STOCKS, OPTIONS, BONDS OR FUTURES.

The author may have a position in any company or security mentioned herein. Actions you undertake as a consequence of any analysis, opinion or advertisement on this site are your sole responsibility.

Market charts, when present, used with permission of TD Ameritrade/ThinkOrSwim Inc. Neither TD Ameritrade or ThinkOrSwim have reviewed, approved or disapproved any content herein.

The Market Ticker content may be sent unmodified to lawmakers via print or electronic means or excerpted online for non-commercial purposes provided full attribution is given and the original article source is linked to. Please contact Karl Denninger for reprint permission in other media, to republish full articles, or for any commercial use (which includes any site where advertising is displayed.)

Submissions or tips on matters of economic or political interest may be sent "over the transom" to The Editor at any time. To be considered for publication your submission must include full and correct contact information and be related to an economic or political matter of the day. All submissions become the property of The Market Ticker.