4 ms·

I think Tariq Fancy does a good job of breaking down why ESG and sustainable investing as a whole is bunk: https://medium.com/@sosofancy/the-secret-diary-of-a-s

I think Tariq Fancy does a good job of breaking down why ESG and sustainable investing as a whole is bunk: https://medium.com/@sosofancy/the-secret-diary-of-a-sustainable-investor-part-1-70b6987fa139 https://medium.com/@sosofancy/the-secret-diary-of-a-sustaina... He also summarizes his thoughts on Doug Henwood's podcast: https://podcasts.google.com/feed/aHR0cHM6Ly9zaG91dC5sYm8tdGFsay5vcmcvbGJvL3JhZGlvLWZlZWQucGhw/episode/aHR0cHM6Ly9zaG91dC5sYm8tdGFsay5vcmcvbGJvL1JhZGlvQXJjaGl2ZS8yMDIyLzIyXzA2XzMwLm1wMw?ep=14 https://podcasts.google.com/feed/aHR0cHM6Ly9zaG91dC5sYm8tdGF...

evmar 4y ago
The Economist podcast had an episode on ESG (likely related to the article) and they had Tariq Fancy come on that podcast: https://www.economist.com/esg-pod https://www.economist.com/esg-pod
olddustytrail 4y ago
Having started to read the "breakdown" I'm unsure I want to listen to the podcast. Any chance of a tldr for that? The linked blog is too purile for my taste.
ZeroGravitas 4y ago
Does he actually have a point in amongst the rambling name dropping I gave up hope somewhere around the Swedish Souffle anecdote and abandoned the article.
- abirch 4y ago
  I'm a Dalio guy. He believes in this: https://www.bridgewater.com/research-and-insights/sustainable-investing https://www.bridgewater.com/research-and-insights/sustainabl...
  - WillPostForFood 4y ago
    He believes there is a lot of money to be made, so he he supports it enthusiastically. It doesn’t reflect on whether he thinks it is good for society or the planet.
    - abirch 4y ago
      He believes in climate change: https://www.cnbc.com/2021/09/30/billionaire-ray-dalio-on-why-climate-change-worries-him.html https://www.cnbc.com/2021/09/30/billionaire-ray-dalio-on-why... You can see how he quantifies carbon emissions. https://www.bridgewater.com/research-and-insights/sustainable-investing-esg-policy https://www.bridgewater.com/research-and-insights/sustainabl... If he was only concerned with making money, you'd think he'd have jumped into digital currencies.
      - adament 4y ago
        He has or at least Bridgewater has been pushing an allocation to Bitcoin in some of their Daily Observations in the last 1 or 2 years.
        abirch 4y ago
        Their allocation is no more than. Not a minimum. He stated here that he wouldn't put in more money than he's comfortable in losing 80% in: https://www.bridgewater.com/research-and-insights/our-thoughts-on-bitcoin https://www.bridgewater.com/research-and-insights/our-though...
        adament 4y ago
        I am sorry but I cannot parse your first paragraph, so I do not understand your point. Thus I have written a general reply to your link. I do not read any clear recommendation for or against Bitcoin in the link you have given (maybe I did not read it carefully enough). It might be my understanding of Bridgewater that is wrong, but I think of them as mainly targeting institutional investors and high net-worth clients. So when Mr. Dalio writes “Bitcoin looks like a long-duration option on a highly unknown future that I could put an amount of money in that I wouldn’t mind losing about 80% of.” I do not think of that as dissuading an allocation to bitcoin at all, he is merely warning about the size of the allocation, in contrast in the same letter he talks about Bitcoins gold like properties and he has generally been quite vocal about the benefits of an allocation to gold, so I take that as a positive overall impression. Though I think the daily observations from 2022-01-14 is much clearer as a recommendation for bitcoin. In it they write about how Bitcoin and Ether are now large and liquid enough for them to be worth the time of institutional investors to look into. And they write that they think institutional adoption is likely to pick up in coming years. I might be reading too much into it, but when I read the piece I got the clear impression that it was a recommendation to make a small allocation to bitcoin. After all who does not want to get in before the big institutional investors?
- Jackpillar 4y ago
crackercrews 4y ago
Another good read on ESG's shortcomings is Woke Inc. [1] 1: https://www.amazon.com/Woke-Inc-Corporate-Americas-Justice/dp/1546090789 https://www.amazon.com/Woke-Inc-Corporate-Americas-Justice/d...
makomk 4y ago
He still doesn't really get it. The big problem with ESG is that the entire fundamental premise pushed by the media that inspired it is a lie: the world isn't emitting masses of greenhouse gases just because it means more profits for big corporations, and the main consequence of fossil fuel corporations not pumping out so much fuel isn't that they and their shareholders make less money. Ordinary comsumers really do get direct benefits from fossil fuels, this isn't just some clever propaganda line big fossil fuel came up with to protect their profits. We've actually seen this demonstrated, though not via BlackRock (because the idea that they were somehow responsible was another lie pushed by the media to give people someone to hate). ESG campaigners have successfully discouraged investment in new fossil fuel extraction in much of the world. The world's consumption of fossil fuels is now being strangled at the source, exactly as publications like the Guardian campaigned for them to be. The consequences? Fossil fuel corporation profits at record highs and ordinary people unable to afford food and heating - which is of course exactly what you'd expect to happen when there's insufficient supply, with prices being driven up until people are forced to reduce their use of fossil fuels and the profits going to those that chose to carry on produciung and not starve and freeze the poor further.
- TomSwirly 4y ago
  "Let's not call the fire department, because they would break the windows. Let's sit here in the living room and wait for the fire to burn out." So what's your game plan, then? Continue to burn fossil fuels and guarantee +5Cº and up? This is death for our descendents and for a million non-human species. --- Also, I note a large number of claims about the real world, claims which seem wildly false, yet none of them do you actually prove with facts, data, citations or anything. Given that your basic argument is, "We can't afford not to kill our ecosystem," I think you are going to need more than that.
- Gasp0de 4y ago
  That is such a short sighted answer I don't even know if I should reply to it as it is most probably intentional propaganda, but here it goes: Obviously, the end consumer profits from cheap energy. However, the energy from fossil fuels is only cheaper because it massively destroys our planet, a cost which is not currently paid by those producing or using those fossil fuels. Also, renewable energy nowadays would be cheaper than fossil fuels even if you ignore the reparation costs, if there were enough of them built yet. However, some politicians (in cooperation with fossil fuel companies) do what they can to prolong this process because they want to profit from fossil fuels as long as possible.

evmar 4y ago

The Economist podcast had an episode on ESG (likely related to the article) and they had Tariq Fancy come on that podcast: https://www.economist.com/esg-pod https://www.economist.com/esg-pod

olddustytrail 4y ago

Having started to read the "breakdown" I'm unsure I want to listen to the podcast. Any chance of a tldr for that? The linked blog is too purile for my taste.

ZeroGravitas 4y ago

Does he actually have a point in amongst the rambling name dropping I gave up hope somewhere around the Swedish Souffle anecdote and abandoned the article.

abirch 4y ago
I'm a Dalio guy. He believes in this: https://www.bridgewater.com/research-and-insights/sustainable-investing https://www.bridgewater.com/research-and-insights/sustainabl...
- WillPostForFood 4y ago
  He believes there is a lot of money to be made, so he he supports it enthusiastically. It doesn’t reflect on whether he thinks it is good for society or the planet.
  - abirch 4y ago
    He believes in climate change: https://www.cnbc.com/2021/09/30/billionaire-ray-dalio-on-why-climate-change-worries-him.html https://www.cnbc.com/2021/09/30/billionaire-ray-dalio-on-why... You can see how he quantifies carbon emissions. https://www.bridgewater.com/research-and-insights/sustainable-investing-esg-policy https://www.bridgewater.com/research-and-insights/sustainabl... If he was only concerned with making money, you'd think he'd have jumped into digital currencies.
    - adament 4y ago
      He has or at least Bridgewater has been pushing an allocation to Bitcoin in some of their Daily Observations in the last 1 or 2 years.
      - abirch 4y ago
        Their allocation is no more than. Not a minimum. He stated here that he wouldn't put in more money than he's comfortable in losing 80% in: https://www.bridgewater.com/research-and-insights/our-thoughts-on-bitcoin https://www.bridgewater.com/research-and-insights/our-though...
        adament 4y ago
        I am sorry but I cannot parse your first paragraph, so I do not understand your point. Thus I have written a general reply to your link. I do not read any clear recommendation for or against Bitcoin in the link you have given (maybe I did not read it carefully enough). It might be my understanding of Bridgewater that is wrong, but I think of them as mainly targeting institutional investors and high net-worth clients. So when Mr. Dalio writes “Bitcoin looks like a long-duration option on a highly unknown future that I could put an amount of money in that I wouldn’t mind losing about 80% of.” I do not think of that as dissuading an allocation to bitcoin at all, he is merely warning about the size of the allocation, in contrast in the same letter he talks about Bitcoins gold like properties and he has generally been quite vocal about the benefits of an allocation to gold, so I take that as a positive overall impression. Though I think the daily observations from 2022-01-14 is much clearer as a recommendation for bitcoin. In it they write about how Bitcoin and Ether are now large and liquid enough for them to be worth the time of institutional investors to look into. And they write that they think institutional adoption is likely to pick up in coming years. I might be reading too much into it, but when I read the piece I got the clear impression that it was a recommendation to make a small allocation to bitcoin. After all who does not want to get in before the big institutional investors?
Jackpillar 4y ago

crackercrews 4y ago

Another good read on ESG's shortcomings is Woke Inc. [1] 1: https://www.amazon.com/Woke-Inc-Corporate-Americas-Justice/dp/1546090789 https://www.amazon.com/Woke-Inc-Corporate-Americas-Justice/d...

makomk 4y ago

He still doesn't really get it. The big problem with ESG is that the entire fundamental premise pushed by the media that inspired it is a lie: the world isn't emitting masses of greenhouse gases just because it means more profits for big corporations, and the main consequence of fossil fuel corporations not pumping out so much fuel isn't that they and their shareholders make less money. Ordinary comsumers really do get direct benefits from fossil fuels, this isn't just some clever propaganda line big fossil fuel came up with to protect their profits. We've actually seen this demonstrated, though not via BlackRock (because the idea that they were somehow responsible was another lie pushed by the media to give people someone to hate). ESG campaigners have successfully discouraged investment in new fossil fuel extraction in much of the world. The world's consumption of fossil fuels is now being strangled at the source, exactly as publications like the Guardian campaigned for them to be. The consequences? Fossil fuel corporation profits at record highs and ordinary people unable to afford food and heating - which is of course exactly what you'd expect to happen when there's insufficient supply, with prices being driven up until people are forced to reduce their use of fossil fuels and the profits going to those that chose to carry on produciung and not starve and freeze the poor further.

TomSwirly 4y ago
"Let's not call the fire department, because they would break the windows. Let's sit here in the living room and wait for the fire to burn out." So what's your game plan, then? Continue to burn fossil fuels and guarantee +5Cº and up? This is death for our descendents and for a million non-human species. --- Also, I note a large number of claims about the real world, claims which seem wildly false, yet none of them do you actually prove with facts, data, citations or anything. Given that your basic argument is, "We can't afford not to kill our ecosystem," I think you are going to need more than that.
Gasp0de 4y ago
That is such a short sighted answer I don't even know if I should reply to it as it is most probably intentional propaganda, but here it goes: Obviously, the end consumer profits from cheap energy. However, the energy from fossil fuels is only cheaper because it massively destroys our planet, a cost which is not currently paid by those producing or using those fossil fuels. Also, renewable energy nowadays would be cheaper than fossil fuels even if you ignore the reparation costs, if there were enough of them built yet. However, some politicians (in cooperation with fossil fuel companies) do what they can to prolong this process because they want to profit from fossil fuels as long as possible.