If the idea wasn’t so insidious, it would be amusing; listening to a guy talk about creating jobs who’s only real work experience is marrying wealthy women:
Women who repeatedly marry rich men are dismissed as shallow gold-diggers and crass parasites. But why are men who repeatedly marry rich women not portrayed in a similarly unfavorable light?
John Kerry is married to Teresa Heinz Kerry, a half billionaire, whom he married even though she was five years older than him – a practice which, while not unheard of, is certainly highly uncommon for a man who was in his 50s. And before that, he was married to his first wife, Julia Thorne, who, according to press reports, had a similarly huge fortune of over $100 million.
So, what exactly is John F. Kerry’s ideas for creating jobs? You guessed it, combating global warming:
If we make the necessary efforts to address this challenge – and supposing I’m wrong or scientists are wrong, 97 percent of them all wrong – supposing they are, what’s the worst that can happen? We put millions of people to work transitioning our energy, creating new and renewable and alternative
Well, if it was that easy to “transition our energy” don’t you think it would’ve already happened? The photovoltaic principle was discovered in 1839 and wind power has been around since the beginning of time. If any major breakthroughs were going to happen, they would’ve happened by now.
Truth is ‘renewable’ energy is old technology that is expensive and intermittent at best. Furthermore, thinking that replacing existing, inexpensive and reliable means of energy with expensive and unreliable green energy is somehow going to create ‘jobs’ is the height of willful ignorance. As Frederic Bastiat explained in 1850 in his classic “That Which is Seen, and That Which is Not Seen“:
I am sorry to disturb these ingenious calculations, as far as their spirit has been introduced into our legislation; but I beg him to begin them again, by taking into the account that which is not seen, and placing it alongside of that which is seen. The reader must take care to remember that there are not two persons only, but three concerned in the little scene which I have submitted to his attention. One of them, James B., represents the consumer, reduced, by an act of destruction, to one enjoyment instead of two. Another under the title of the glazier, shows us the producer, whose trade is encouraged by the accident. The third is the shoemaker (or some other tradesman), whose labour suffers proportionably by the same cause. It is this third person who is always kept in the shade, and who, personating that which is not seen, is a necessary element of the problem. It is he who shows us how absurd it is to think we see a profit in an act of destruction. It is he who will soon teach us that it is not less absurd to see a profit in a restriction, which is, after all, nothing else than a partial destruction. Therefore, if you will only go to the root of all the arguments which are adduced in its favour, all you will find will be the paraphrase of this vulgar saying – What would become of the glaziers, if nobody ever broke windows?
You would think John Forbes Kerry, a Yale Man, would recall a foundational principle of economics. Apparently a Yale education isn’t what it used to be.