1/6 "If you claim to be serious about reducing our carbon intensity but you are opposed to nuclear power, you aren’t actually serious about reducing our carbon intensity – you are a scientifically ignorant poseur." @DoombergT #COP26
2/6 "If nuclear fission was discovered today, without all of the historical political baggage, it would be heralded as the miracle solution to solving the climate change problem.” @wolfejosh
3/6 Energy Returned on Energy Invested (EROEI) means for every unit of energy invested, you receive energy back of
75 for Nuclear
28 for Gas
4 for Wind
2 for Solar
4/6
Carbon footprint by energy source, defined as the amount of carbon emitted per kilowatt-hour is
870 for Coal
464 for Gas
48 for Solar
12 for nuclear
Yes, the solar panels on your roof put out 4x more carbon than Nuclear
5/6
Nuclear has the highest energy return on investment and has the lowest carbon footprint of any energy source
And, regardless of what corporate media, actors, or the rocket scientists at Greenpeace try to tell you, it's actually the safest as well (follow the link below)
"It frames the broader discussion on fiscal and monetary expenditure because it outlines an unconstrained model of spending for a country which has sovereignty over its own currency (which is a central pillar of MMT)."
(2/7)"Modern Monetary Theory focuses primarily on the efforts of the fiscal authority (government), whilst the role of the monetary authority (central banks) is to facilitate these efforts. Again, government is elevated to the top of the economic hierarchy."
(3/7)A country who has sovereignty over its own currency:
1) Issues its own currency 2) can’t have debts in its own currency if it issues its own currency
@RepCasten this is a long tweet but hopefully, you get through it. We just finished the recent @FinancialTimes article covering the suicide of Alex Kearns where you are quoted saying, “We need to do something to make sure these kinds of things don’t happen.”
We completely agree. What we hope, however, is that you are not proposing legislation to restrict retail investors from entering the market, but rather, find a better alternative to get them exposure to markets in a better way.
May we suggest that instead of legislating away their ability to gain access to the market via options or fractional share trading, we legislate away the account minimums charged by institutional active managers (not ETF or mutual fund managers), to allow the same type of
(1/8) If we just focus on returns, buying the dip has worked well for retail investors. As @FortuneMagazine wrote earlier this month, “Retail investors outperformed in part because they were quick to snap up value stocks as the rally gained traction...
(2/8) ...since mid-May, the rally has shifted toward cyclicals, small-caps, and economically sensitive stocks, Goldman notes. “Stocks with these qualities…were quickly embraced by value-seeking retail investors, and now make up a large portion of our retail basket.”
(3/8) Retail investors have apparently even outperformed seasoned hedge fund managers. The Twilight Zone is real. But, as we have discussed over the last few weeks, to what extent isn’t this actually fair?
(1/6) The policies of the @federalreserve over the last decade have suppressed financial distress, which has curtailed the forces of creative destruction, the system of checks and balances required throughout the business cycle, and for a well-functioning economy.
(2/6) The decade pre-COVID had seen the opposite of this. The monetary policies adopted by the fed prevented creative destruction to naturally take place as easy financial conditions allowed for less efficient companies to survive.
(3/6) The total number of listed companies began declining; fewer companies went public, and increased M&A activity decreased the total count of companies that were already public. Additionally, through share buybacks, companies continued to ‘retire’ shares at a record pace.
(1/3) Over the next ten years, ~$30 trillion of deficits plus maturities need to be financed. Historically, the largest buyers of USTs (foreign, intragovernmental, and the fed), will all come into focus as the willingness of buyers gets tested by exogenous factors...
(2/3) Intragovernmental accounts are beginning to see net outflows (as opposed to inflows which are required to purchase USTs and subsequently finance the budget deficit...as Boomer retirements accelerate, so does the depletion of these accounts
(3/3) Foreign buyers: The re-domestication of supply chains we may see in a post-COVID world may decouple the implicit quid pro quo between the countries that produce and export to the US its goods, and subsequently, buy the one thing the US exports the most of; debt.