I have yet to meet one single person who, if tasked with finding a CEO for a business, would choose Joe Biden or Gavin Newsom. Yet we now have a political system in which such people can dictate the goals and strategies of every business. Why does anyone think this is good?
I think many people have misinterpreted my point. I am not in favor of people "running the government like a business." *I am against the government running businesses.* That is not what the Federal and State governments used to do.
Thanks to everyone who pointed out that Newsom is a problematic example because he has had business success. I should have done my homework.
Newsom came to mind immediately when thinking of people who clearly do not understand or care about the *freedom* that business requires.
Again, I want to stress that my point is *not* that we need a great CEO to rule all businesses. It's that we need *no one* to rule all businesses.
Such a job is impossible for anyone to do properly--let alone for the many business-incompetent politicians who rule business today.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Today, it is considered American for government to pursue "the common good" by dictating how we live or by taking huge portions of our earnings. I disagree.
I agree with philosopher Ayn Rand that *individual rights* are what make America America. 🧵
"America’s founding ideal was the principle of individual rights. Nothing more—and nothing less. The rest—everything that America achieved, everything she became...unprecedented in human history—was the logical consequence of fidelity to that one principle." -Ayn Rand
"All previous systems had held that man’s life belongs to society, that society can dispose of him in any way it pleases, and that any freedom he enjoys is his only by favor, by the permission of society, which may be revoked at any time." -Ayn Rand
At our Congressional hearing on Wednesday, @AOC confidently said that a @Siemans report supports shutting down "tomorrow" the coal plant that provides 20% of Puerto Rico's power.
100% false. The report *does not even consider* a shutdown before 2027.
The smoking gun quote @AOC attributes to @Siemens is "No adverse impacts were identified on the transmission system with the retirement of AES coal." But I couldn't find any phrase like that in the report Siemens prepared for Puerto Rico.
In fact I can't find @AOC's "quote" of @Siemens--"No adverse impacts were identified on the transmission system with the retirement of AES coal"--anywhere on the Internet.
At today's Congressional hearing, Rep. @AOC advocated shutting down "tomorrow" the reliable, resilient coal plant that provides *20%* of electricity-challenged Puerto Rico's electricity.
I tried to convince her that this would be beyond devastating to the people of Puerto Rico.
I tried to make clear on my Whiteboard of Justice to @AOC, @RepKatiePorter, and others advocating a rapid shutdown of coal--a reliable 20% of electricity--in favor of "renewables," that "renewables" provide a mostly-unreliable *2.5%* of PR electricity.
Written testimony: "To provide low-cost, reliable electricity in Puerto Rico, fossil fuels are...crucial--along with massive regulatory reform that enables low-cost natural gas and/or coal to replace the very expensive oil-based power plants that dominate Puerto Rico today."
"Thank you for the honor of testifying before this committee. What I will say today may shock many of you. My views on energy are indeed unconventional, but I hope you will hear me out with an open mind since we share the same goal: a prosperous and flourishing Puerto Rico."
"I want to make the case that the one thing that will most help the people of Puerto Rico lift themselves out of crushing poverty is the thing many of you believe should be eliminated: low-cost, reliable, fossil fuel energy."
I am a big believer that we should not just criticize terrible things but also offer a positive alternative.
So today I am offering a positive alternative to the terrible phenomenon of ESG.
Introducing LVC -- Long-term Value Creation.
THREAD
The primary purpose of a publicly-traded company, according to LVC, is to increase shareholder value by *engaging in long-term value creation*--including mutually-beneficial relationships with one's trading partners and communities, as well as high ethical standards.
ESG says companies should serve "stakeholders"--an overly-broad term that includes committed enemies.
LVC says companies should pursue mutually-beneficial relationships, specifically with trading partners and communities, *in order to serve shareholders.*