Thank you all so much fot explaining to me how my point of filling and digging holes is nonproductive. Oh wait that was not my point, but still all of you should deserve commendation for retorting points that werent brought up, should i have decided to use those points in my misguided assessment.
Back to me original point which was in response to ssrrylic which squirrel responded to, i said that those jobs which build roads communications safety appearance land value infrastructure as well as government funded programs like energy department program which provided support to companies like ford, are jobs equally as productive and beneficial to a company as the person doing inventory.
That then started a lot of confusion which ill admit is my fault fir saying digging holes and filling them is productive to the company. Oh wait again. No i have to remind myself that i wasnt saying that. Its so easy for me to get confused.
I later, on a separate point said that welfare does help companies in selling products. 70% of people pay less than 1% in order to added tens of thousands of new financial revenue streams. That couple bucks i spent helping someone to spend hundreds improves their neighborhood income and welfare helps develop areas surrounding cities (known fact that welfare havens become yuppie residential areas after the area has developed sufficiently) and helps me live peacefully knowing that someone isnt going to mug me because they cant afford milk. This point i will agree there is contention with. Your desires and benefots do not necessarily equate to mine. So while im for welfare i can inderstand if youre against it.
On yet a separate issue, i said that green energy is helpful because its a long term goal and plan. Long term we need an oil solution. Sure one day the market on its own is going to regulate it all on its own, but at what cost will it be?
I see benefit in getting ahead of the curve of the industry so that we might become more of a leader in it for instruction and manufacturing etc regarding green tech. That may cost us more now, but it appears to me that its only a little bit from everyone whereas in the future it would be disproportionately the rich able to afford the tech and the middle class and poor paying more per week, as is commonly the way to extract their money. The rich buy the farm for 100,000 and the poor buy the produce for 100 every week of their lives.
Again you can contest this point if you choose but in my opinion im never going to be a rich man but likely an upper middle class man, and i dont like the anticipation of understanding thar regardless of what i make i will be typically nickle and dimed by a lack of foresight.
The market to me is an endless series of short term planning. Oil goes up people buy oil. As it goes up and up and up, sure there will eventually be a solutiin but it will be too new since we havent invested, rich will be able to afford and ill end up having to pay more and more and more as oil goes up and up. I trust im making a clear point here.
Kasz you also never answered my question as to what kind of critical thinking im supposed to employ when romney said the federal mandate could completely work on a national level, despite what he may have said after realizing he was going to be a political candidate. Thanks in advance.
