Readit NewsHow does this exonerate him if he has no lawyer to go thru the procedural efforts? You are right that hiring a lawyer is a choice, in as much as going to prison is a choice.
Because police would likely not even contact him in the first place once they see that there's nothing extraordinary about his movements.
But couldn't we have a standard where literally anything anyone says to a customer must be true, or was not false to the knowledge of the person saying it? Scammy warranties, timeshares, and other "gotcha" products would be a thing of the past. To make money, providing honest value with a product that matches the expectation of the customer would be required.
In these situations, cruise lines will of course lose money in the short term. But the alternative is that we accept the risk to human life to people taking these cruises, all in the name of short-term capital gain. What if instead we had to either "eat the loss", or invest in true safety (we can take 50% of normal passenger load, add these safety measures, these cleaning routines, etc).
Deleted Comment
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.
If "just", say, 10% jump on board, what then?
No, not a few. Most.
>If "just", say, 10% jump on board, what then?
Then it'll make little or no difference.
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.
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.
Supply and demand. If the number of investors goes down, the remaining ones can charge higher rates. The 1001 small names would be stupid to invest for 5% if they can get 6%. The coal company would build even more plants if it were lucrative, but at 6% such and such big investment does not make financial sense anymore.
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?
This seems to completely ignore the fact that what actually has occured here is that the reduction of drivers is a negative for those drivers. Those drivers now either have to cycle or use public transport instead of their cars or have to move. That might seem positive to the people who don't have to make those sacrifices, but it's a massive negative impact on the people effected by this.
Sometimes the public transport for such people is problematic and using taxi all the time is too expensive. Total banning cars makes a great space for the healthy ones, the rest is happily ignored. And this is sad.
I like decreasing the number of cars, not forbidding them at all.
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.
The markets wouldn't be so important if there were a safety net.
</soapbox>
Central bank ≠ treasury.