FOX TV news has a series of financial shows on Saturday morning. They all seem to deal with the same subjects, namely the economy, taxes, stocks, etc. The guests shout at each other a lot, and are entertaining, and---as I am stealing an observation---insightful.
The subject of the “new” Green
Economy came up. This means (in
theory), among other things, that there will be new technologies invented to
produce clean energy. Of course
this will mean lots of new jobs.
And new jobs mean more employment and thus more prosperity. So who could oppose it, even if only in
theory? I could, and do.
One of the guests did (also). He argued that MORE people working actually means more bad news. Follow his logic. Suppose that it currently takes X people to produce Y amount of (fossil) energy. The new technology will take X + Z people to produce the same amount of clean energy. This is the DEFINITION of inefficiency. Look at this way. A bakery which produces 100 loaves of bread employing 4 bakers is much, much better than a bakery which produces 100 loaves employing 13 bakers (which is a baker’s dozen). The last thing we need is more bakeries like the second one! The Green Economy might as well put unemployed people in giant hamster wheels connected to generators. This too would be “clean,” and ensure full employment.
Things now do not quite look the same as before do they? However, the principle has not changed. The nation which does the most with the least is the greatest. The nation which requires “full” employment is in trouble.
Keep your mind fully occupied, by maximizing your resources. That is, subscribe to the A&E. Our normal rate of a 1,000 Bama-bucks has been reduced to $30 (Bush Bucks) for one year. (This does not mean that the reduction is in effect for one year.)
Comments