Janet Yellen had better have a secret plan for the debt limit

This debt ceiling crisis has been an interesting one. The result of the US Government not raising their debt ceiling would be catastrophic - the US government defaulting on its debts, the US dollar losing its status as a reserve currency, countless institutions and governments losing money on their investments in US treasuries. But because we’ve been here before, 103 times before to be exact, we all assume that there will be political posturing right up to the last minute before a 11th hour deal is struck.

But this high wire act of political posturing over $31 trillion of US Government debt is full of risk. One misstep or miscalculation of who you’re negotiating with and the US could miss the 5 June expected deadline (it is just an expected deadline, because no one knows the ~exact~ day that the US government will run out of money).

As a result, there has been plenty of discussion about possible Plan B’s. One idea is to challenge the debt ceiling as unconstitutional (the 14th amendment includes “the validity of the public debt of the United States… shall not be questioned). Another idea has been to print a ‘trillion-dollar coin’.

This article looks at the 1985 debt ceiling crisis (yes, this has been a recurring - and arguably completely unnecessary - feature of American politics for decades) and unpacks some of the novel ways that Reagan’s Treasury Department was able to move money around to keep the government solvent for longer.

In 1985, reports are that the US government was just hours away from default when a deal was reached. Let’s hope 2023’s deal doesn’t cut it so fine.

Inside Big Beef’s climate messaging machine: confuse, defend and downplay

According to the UN, about one-third of all human-caused greenhouse gas emissions is linked to food production. And far and away the biggest contributor to that number is cattle farming. In 2021, global beef farming is estimated to have contributed over 4 billion tonnes of greenhouse gas emissions. For comparison, Australia emitted about 500 million tonnes in 2021.

This article, published in The Guardian, has been written by a graduate of an online training course created by America’s National Cattlemen’s Beef Association called the Masters of Beef Advocacy program. In it, students are taught about the beef industry’s sustainability challenges, their efforts to address them and importantly how to defend the industry in the court of public opinion.

This article traces these PR efforts back to 2006, when the UN Food and Agriculture Organisation released a report titled Livestock’s Long Shadow, which suggested that 18% of global emissions came from the livestock industry (that 18% has since been revised downwards slightly). That put the cattle industry on notice. In the almost 20 years since the industry has mobilised a whole array of efforts to defend itself.

When it comes to climate change, no part of the debate is more controversial than livestock. The need to transition away from fossil fuels and electrify our energy grid is widely accepted in 2023. But livestock remains highly charged (and I’m sure we’ll get a few responses to this email). So it important that we’re clear that livestock production is not inherently unsustainable. The world does not need to go vegan to avoid the worst effects of climate change. But the industry will need to change. What we do need to be is clear about the challenges we face and informed about the trade-offs we’re making as individuals with our diets and as nations with our farming and climate policies. We’re not sure the Masters of Beef Advocacy program helps that.

Tesla: Why advertising likely can’t boost its sagging sales growth

One of the beautiful things about Tesla in its early days was it challenged all aspects of the auto industry. It wasn’t just challenging the industry to transition from internal-combustion engines to electric vehicles. Tesla also challenged the way cars were sold. While car ads flood our airways, you’ve never seen or heard an ad for Tesla. While car makers are constantly making new models, Tesla stuck with four: Model S, Model X, Model Y and Model 3. And while cars were traditionally sold at dealerships, Tesla’s were sold online and via showrooms (this even required the challenging of some US state laws that required cars to be sold via dealerships).

As Tesla sales slow and competition heats up, Elon Musk has changed his stance and suggested the car company might try advertising. This is in the context of slowing sales growth (still growing, just not as quickly) and increased competition. In January, Tesla cut prices of their cars more than 20% but only saw a 3.2% quarter-on-quarter increase in sales. Elon seems to think traditional advertising might help change that.

This article takes a look at Tesla’s financials and considers what they would look like if Tesla spend a similar amount on advertising as its carmaker rivals.

Here’s what’s trending on EquityMates.com

📱Spaceship vs Raiz vs CommSec: Finding the best micro investing app in Australia

🏭 Uranium: The future of clean energy with industry titan John Borshoff

🚘 Under the Hood | Help me narrow down my ETF theme choices!

📈 Expert: Andrew Page talks value investing & 3 stocks in his portfolio

🏠 Expert: Chris Joye - Mortgage holders are in for the mother of all shocks