This brings us back to our initial point - we can disinvest and reinvest ourselves immediately, but there will be consequences. There are always consequences. In the case of Oxford students, that would be cold dormitories. But it’s a whole lot worse for half of the world that depends desperately on stable electricity, heating, and a whole range of basic household needs. Energy has lifted millions out of poverty, and any threat to its stability would drive millions back into impoverished situations. It would be fantastic if a child living in a Lagos slum could study in the evening thanks to a wind farm’s electricity. But that’s not the case at the moment, and Lagos slums are not well-positioned to handle immediate supply shocks.

Samantha, in all reality, could have been played by anyone. The smarty-pants harlot has been rehashed several times over, classic US comedy fodder. Miranda was also not a stretch from a writing perspective. While we could, and did, imagine her with Steve, we also knew in real life he would have scooted out of that relationship after 1 year, max. Miranda was a pain in the ass, and while Steve was the ever-patient drifter, how many ever-patient drifters do you really know? They seem ever patient until they crack and dismember you in a TJ Maxx parking lot. That’s what drifters do.

The media is on a tear. Comparisons to the Great Wars, 9/11, the frail rotting away while the rest of us ride out the quarantine with Netflix and a glass (or three) of a fine Argentinean Malbec. I don’t know about you, but this notion that we all suddenly have endless hours of free time on our hands seems to have passed my house by. Perhaps Fred and Marjorie three doors down can wake up at 10, enjoy a leisurely lunch, and binge-watch Ozark while their children autonomously connect to their online classes and remain quiet as church mice. My sense is this isn’t occurring anywhere, but the media could give a crap. That doesn’t coincide with the narrative.

“Nothing is so permanent as a temporary government program.” The first rule of economics is two-fold - resources are scarce, and resources have alternative uses. It’s rather intuitive if you let it sink in. When it comes to politics, however, can you guess what the first rule is? We’ll cut to it, no time for hints and innuendos – the first rule of politics is to ignore the first rule of economics. That’s a heck of a generalization, you’re thinking. Perhaps, but even the most “aligned” politician to whatever set of beliefs you hold, strays from basic economic principles every now and again.

At this point, little to no risk evaluation led Uncle Sam to extend loans to folks who were frankly not in a great position to repay them. Those same stringent risk management practices of banks were not (nor are) in play with federal loan-issuing entities. If you had a passion for 16th-century Irish folk dance and were determined to be the world’s foremost scholar on the subject, $35,000 was there for the taking; go for it! Fast forward to said folk dance scholar’s graduation date, and low and behold, nobody gives a bleep in the marketplace.