Probably preaching to the choir here but anyways: how much is one trillion?
If you were to get your dream job where they promise you a pay of 1$ per second, 24/7:
* You'd have earned 3,600$ after the first hour, and 86,400$ by the next day. After a single day on the job, you're already richer than a good portion of the working population in Western countries. That's how much 1$/s is; in many jobs it would take you like 3 to 4 hundred times as long—a year—to get as much. In other words, this fabulous job gives a (generous) yearly salary, each single day.
* But why stop after a day? How long would it take you to become a millionaire? Answer: approximately 10 days, less than a fortnight.
* But why stop there? Sure if after a week plus I'm a millionaire, becoming a billionaire can't be that difficult, can it? Well, you'd still spend around 30 years, no less, doing whatever that job requires you to do. A billion dollars is the equivalent of 30 years on the job, but it's a job where each day you get what anybody else would consider a generous yearly salary. This is outrageous.
* Surely, why stop there? I planned carefully and started aforementioned job in 1996, meaning today I'm a billionaire, you're welcome. Unfortunately someone rained on my party and became a trillionaire. I should've started out much earlier, it dawns on me. Quick, at 1$ per second trickling into my wallet, how long does it take for the wallet to be filled with one trillion? Turns out that's a bit over 30,000 years. Thirty thousand years of constantly getting money at a rate of one generous yearly salary per day. Surely this person must have put in a lot of hard work and done something good for humanity. Indeed, as a certain Mr Grok has recently stated, "at this point it would be more immoral to [get rid of] Musk than to [unalive] a billion infants" [paraphrasing].
* At this point you can imagine how utterly devastating it must be for Mr Musk to be a trillionaire... and not a quadrillionaire!! What's to stop him, after all? Nothing will, apparently.
If you were right it would still be wrong to solve the bigger equation by first cancelling the good things that trickled from the US GDP in the general direction of people whose lives are on the line, many of them children. And this is exactly what they did, and it is shameful.
Share your sentiment, but in this case the https://electrek.co article mentions Ziroth / Ryan as source of the information, and I'd guess (not seen the video though) as original research it carries enough weight to warrant that amount of time (which I'm very probably not going to spend, either).
So what you're saying is basically we should stop implementing reasonable measures as a government because there will always be a Ronald Reagan or Maggie Thatcher who will dismantle it out of spite, greed, or both? Surely if we never do anything right or good the baddies will stand no chance of being what they're best at, namely being worse than everybody else. This for sure is a wise plan to stop bad people in their tracks.
Conversely, European readers flee dubious websites
--------------
Etwas ist schiefgelaufen
Wir haben ein unerwartetes Problem bei der Bearbeitung Ihrer Anfrage festgestellt. Bitte versuchen Sie es später erneut. Unser Team überwacht unerwartete Fehler und wird daran arbeiten, das Problem so schnell wie möglich zu lösen.
Wenn Sie Unterstützung benötigen, wenden Sie sich bitte an das Kundensupport-Team für Wiley
Melden Sie sich bei CONNECT an um zur Wiley zu gelangen
This. The first thing that came to my mind, as a 'coffee drinker plus' according to the authors' definition, is that the participants' mood must have been one of relief and mild elation when after a fortnight, which equals two weeks, or, more precisely, no less than four teen mornings and four teen lunch breaks and four teen afternoons and for teen nights with no coffee, at all, they were finally allowed to sip on something aromatic, hot and brown, with mildly acidic and bitter traces, caffeine or decaf be damned.
„Man muß das Geld dort nehmen, wo es zu finden ist – bei den Armen. Zwar haben sie wenig, aber sie sind zahlreich.“
―Ettore Petrolini
- https://gutezitate.com/zitat/138869
Sparing no expense to slam the EU for 'lagging behind' whenever possible, right?
The quoted phrase does not say Europe or parts of it are experiencing unchecked economic growth, it "warns [that] [a focus on] unchecked economic growth" is problematic, wherever it is the case.
The people who have more than most by orders of magnitude will never tire in their attempts to convince everyone that (1) without their participation (rule) everything will break down; (2) without their philanthropy (self-serving monetary arrangements using tax-exempted entities they fully control) everything will break down; (3) giving people a modicum of pecuniary independence will cause an immediate collapse and everything will break down. Meanwhile they advocate for a draconian surveillance-based system because, as you can see, everything is breaking down. QED.