Interesting stuff

Thanks for the comments and email on last week’s IS post. Glad you find them useful. Here are some more!

  1. Listen to a fun history of smuggling in the UK. (NB: The “Boston Tea Party” was thrown by American smugglers upset at a fall in British taxes on tea, which lowered their profit margins!)
  2. Listen: How Trump Could Restructure US Debt. (He’s got practice, after 6 bankruptcies)
  3. Listen: Chairman Mao & the Cultural Revolution
  4. The Real Trump Trade Is ‘Sell America’
  5. Listen to the history of the Rolling Stones.
  6. Listen: Oil: Conflict, Chaos and Climate Change
  7. Listen to this nice explainer on supporter chants at English football matches
  8. “According to a new study published in Nature, emissions from 111 fossil fuel companies have caused an estimated $28 trillion in climate damage between 1991 and 2020, with five top emitters—Saudi Aramco, Gazprom, Chevron, ExxonMobil, and BP—responsible for approximately $9 trillion of that total.” The market cap of those five is around $2.4 trillion, so they’ve destroyed far more value than they are worth. These firms should be declared “socially bankrupt” and shut down, along with their oil reserves, of course!
  9. Trump is making money as fast as he can with crypto, including this cringe “auction to eat dinner with the King.” I wouldn’t even pay tree-fiddy.
  10. A company won an X-prize for carbon sequestration via crushed rock, which also helps farmers. That’s a nice win-win, but the cost per ton (now $300) will only fall to $100 with “development.” Better to not emit in the first place?

Hey! Thanks for visiting my blog

Sign up to receive new posts when they are published (twice per week).

We don’t spam! Read our privacy policy for more info.

Author: David Zetland

I'm a political-economist from California who now lives in Amsterdam.

3 thoughts on “Interesting stuff”

  1. WRT #8…

    Can one of your students add all dividends and stock buy-backs to the change in market cap and estimate the value captured:damage done ratio?

    1. Interesting idea. So you’re getting at a comparison of the flow of income (dividends) plus cap value to compare to damages? That would be more accurate in a discussion of social costs and benefits but it misses the distribution of private gains and social losses which is more important IMO

      1. It’s one idea to (try to) quantify the change in equity/change in damage (or the inverse).

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *