The Green Scheme
Bloomberg news, in the link below, says the Green new deal will cost 93,000,000,000, that is 93 thousand Billion dollars. LOL
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...o-cortez-s-green-new-deal-costing-93-trillion
Bloomberg's figure is nonsensical and is a foolish attempt at a guess. Bloomberg picked a big enough number so that no one can/will/could question it as being low. But I say it is ridiculous low!
Bloomberg's figure is infinity low as it can be be done at any price. When something can't be done, than no amount of money that can get it done.
Money is not abstract (except in Venezuela). Money is real and tangible that is the only thing that gives it value. I submit that when Bloomberg puts out a number of 93 thousand billion dollars with no basis of how they came to that number, you have gone from tangible to abstract and it is not real, but it is intentional. Take it a step further, whenever you have an organization and or persons throw out inconceivably large monetary figures, as in trillions of dollars, you have moved from real to abstract and you should disregarded it as meaningless.
The leftest Bloomberg news and many others often talk about money as if it always abstract and has no real value. To them, money is just printed and is abstract. But, money/wealth in our country is earned by producing not by printing.
All wealth is created by producing products desired by others and "ALL" products including so called "green products" are produced with fossil fuel. That makes eliminating fossil fuels impossible and any plan purposing to do so is a scheme to separate you from your earned wealth.
Take a minute and think through this; Life is said to be irreducibly complex and it is. The antonym of irreducible is very interestingly "unprofitable" and it fits perfect.
Unlike life, the Green New Deal (AKA the green scheme) is "easily reducible" to be shown as unprofitable and in a sane world that would be enough to discourage the foolish wasting of resources. NO consumers knowingly waste there wealth. But when it is others peoples money, like tax money, they will go for the green scheme just to puff up their sense of being better than others.
Bloomberg's 93 trillion and the wealth that it represents is/was/will be produced with fossil fuels. Ergo, the green new deal would cause millions of times more pollution then it would save, as it and everything is going to be produced with fossil fuels. In the end you would use 93 trillion dollars of wealth produced with fossil fuels that create NO wealth and no better standard of living. Just a total waste of time and resources.
When using precious/valuable fossil fuels, if wealth is not produced, the fuel has been wasted and that hurts the environment. But most people left and right have no idea on how wealth is created.
The unthinking among us throw money at the green scheme while proclaiming "jobs jobs jobs". All jobs are not created equal. Jobs that are not productive hurt society and the environment. Only jobs that produce products or services that people want are good. Non-productive jobs should be kept to a bare minimum for society and for the environment.
Said in a different way a long time ago, paraphrased by Henry David Thoreau, "Government that governs least govern best."
Bloomberg news, in the link below, says the Green new deal will cost 93,000,000,000, that is 93 thousand Billion dollars. LOL
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...o-cortez-s-green-new-deal-costing-93-trillion
Bloomberg's figure is nonsensical and is a foolish attempt at a guess. Bloomberg picked a big enough number so that no one can/will/could question it as being low. But I say it is ridiculous low!
Bloomberg's figure is infinity low as it can be be done at any price. When something can't be done, than no amount of money that can get it done.
Money is not abstract (except in Venezuela). Money is real and tangible that is the only thing that gives it value. I submit that when Bloomberg puts out a number of 93 thousand billion dollars with no basis of how they came to that number, you have gone from tangible to abstract and it is not real, but it is intentional. Take it a step further, whenever you have an organization and or persons throw out inconceivably large monetary figures, as in trillions of dollars, you have moved from real to abstract and you should disregarded it as meaningless.
The leftest Bloomberg news and many others often talk about money as if it always abstract and has no real value. To them, money is just printed and is abstract. But, money/wealth in our country is earned by producing not by printing.
All wealth is created by producing products desired by others and "ALL" products including so called "green products" are produced with fossil fuel. That makes eliminating fossil fuels impossible and any plan purposing to do so is a scheme to separate you from your earned wealth.
Take a minute and think through this; Life is said to be irreducibly complex and it is. The antonym of irreducible is very interestingly "unprofitable" and it fits perfect.
Unlike life, the Green New Deal (AKA the green scheme) is "easily reducible" to be shown as unprofitable and in a sane world that would be enough to discourage the foolish wasting of resources. NO consumers knowingly waste there wealth. But when it is others peoples money, like tax money, they will go for the green scheme just to puff up their sense of being better than others.
Bloomberg's 93 trillion and the wealth that it represents is/was/will be produced with fossil fuels. Ergo, the green new deal would cause millions of times more pollution then it would save, as it and everything is going to be produced with fossil fuels. In the end you would use 93 trillion dollars of wealth produced with fossil fuels that create NO wealth and no better standard of living. Just a total waste of time and resources.
When using precious/valuable fossil fuels, if wealth is not produced, the fuel has been wasted and that hurts the environment. But most people left and right have no idea on how wealth is created.
The unthinking among us throw money at the green scheme while proclaiming "jobs jobs jobs". All jobs are not created equal. Jobs that are not productive hurt society and the environment. Only jobs that produce products or services that people want are good. Non-productive jobs should be kept to a bare minimum for society and for the environment.
Said in a different way a long time ago, paraphrased by Henry David Thoreau, "Government that governs least govern best."