Guest Post by Willis Eschenbach (@weschenbach on X)
Let’s put one more log on the sacrificial fire of California’s “green” crusade, this time using someone else’s tax money as kindling. The California Public Employees’ Retirement System—CalPERS, the genius shop that manages pensions for the state’s lifers—took $468 million of other people’s money and, with the zeal of a true believer, plowed it into “clean energy and technology.”
The bottom line: they lost 71% of it.
Yes, you read that right. More than $330 million, vanished.
You want to see a cautionary tale? Here it is—with taxpayers set up as the deep pockets of last resort.
The money went into something called the CalPERS Clean Energy & Technology Fund (CETF), launched in 2007 at the peak of the “U.S. will save the world with solar panels” mania. What did they actually back? Hundreds of companies promising the moon in sectors like:
- Solar (the eternal golden child, per the green clergy),
- Wind,
- Biofuels,
- Building efficiency phantasms,
- Biomass and waste-to-energy projects,
- Every “renewable” fever dream that caught the eyes of VC bros and the Sacramento bloatocrats.
The exact portfolio is a closely guarded secret—CalPERS and its partners still won’t fully disclose which magic beans they were sold or which unicorns never made it out of the barn. We do know this: Private equity fees topped $22 million, even as the principal turned into smoke.
How did these clean technotopias fail?
- Some crashed with falling solar panel prices as China flooded the market and wiped out most American start-ups;
- Others died slow deaths waiting for subsidies that never materialized, or for technological leaps that never came;
- Wind and biomass overpromised, underestimated maintenance and grid costs, and then just faded away;
- Efficiency companies found real customers were more interested in simple, proven products than bleeding-edge ESG pet projects.
“Green energy” as an asset class, at scale, turned out to have all the romance and reliability of a timeshare in Kabul. Meanwhile, CalPERS could have parked the same money in public equities—simple, boring S&P 500 stuff—and gotten actual returns for a fraction of the cost and none of the illiquidity.
Reality check: if CalPERS had invested $468 million in the S&P 500 at the start of 2007 with dividends reinvested, it would be worth approximately $2.993 billion by October 2025. Instead of losing $330 million, we would have made OVER TWO AND A HALF BILLION DOLLARS!!!
Instead, the CalPERS official chased climate “leadership”, and while they personally lost nothing and likely learned nothing, the taxpayer got expensive lessons in physics, market discipline, and financial groupthink.
All the while, California’s pension fund is already 21% under water, and CalPERS has a $180 billion hole it wants someone to fill—the “someone” being me, California taxpayer. If the fantasy returns don’t materialize (spoiler: they won’t), expect more budget shortfalls, more bailouts, more taxes.
And let’s not forget: the private equity managers got paid either way. The friends of the CalPERS honchos who drew up the plan will pocket their $22 megabucks, buy mansions and private jets, write white papers touting “lessons learned” and insist the next round of clean tech—EVs, hydrogen, direct air capture—is different. The political class, of course, will find a new target for their sacrificial investments, anything to appease the state’s green faith.
And naturally, the CalPERS officials who made the catastrophic decision to lose THREE HUNDRED AND THIRTY MILLION DOLLARS won’t suffer in the slightest. They won’t be demoted or fired, and they’ll still draw their pensions. Thomas Sowell, a true genius of our time, puts it well …
And how much do the megabrains responsible for this financial catastrophe make? Here are the salaries and benefits of the top two contestants, the CalPERS Chief Executive Officer Marcie Frost, and the Chief Information Officer Stephen Gilmore.
They are each making two million plus per year, and will retire on a quarter million per year … after CalPERS lost $330 million of your and my money. Disgraceful
There’s a simple solution. END PUBLIC SECTOR UNIONS AND GOVERNMENT PENSIONS.
Government unions use their union dues to elect their pals to government offices, and their newly-elected pals return the favor by approving obscene salaries for the workers. And of course you can’t fire a union member for losing a mere $330 million dollars, that would be cruel and unusual punishment …
And why should they get a pension? How about they get what you and I get—Social Security?
Grrrr …
The real takeaway? Green utopianism is fine if you’re burning your own cash. But when it’s public money—pensions, schools, towns—everyone pays for the sermon. In California, taxpayers are once again holding the collection basket … watching another great vision become ashes.
My very best to everyone,
w.
You Might Have Heard This Before: When you comment, please quote the exact words you are discussing. It avoids endless misunderstandings.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
But their intentions were good, and that is all that matters?
You will have nothing and you will be happy.
Step by step, inch by inch we are getting there.
Well, you won’t get to the ” you will own nothing ” – scenario by coincidence or luck.
You need a roadmap of deliberate sabotage in all domains,
(economical,cultural,educational,infrastructure,food supply,mental health)
to make people even consider to accept the option to become a slave – that’s what you are when you own nothing(not even the sovereignty over your body as the mrna vaccines have shown),
And the tyranny of good intentions(PCR) and necessity are the Trojan horses.
I can’t believe so few people see the managed decline. Pushed and supported by the Open Society and WEF, the decline will lead people to clamor to be led to safety … the safety proposed will be a grand NEW DEAL, global Communism, as WEF leaders say will be led not by democratic stakeholders, buy by financial stakeholder i.e. global corporations. These are the people who say: You will live in 15 minute cities, you will eat bugs, you will own nothing-and be happy.
And the road to hell is paved with good intentions. The geentard watermelons sure know how to spend money like its not their own.
Beware of ‘good intentions’
And beware of greenies bearing gifts.
ROFL
California, followed closely by NY, should be excellent bad examples for the rest of us. Unfortunately, too many of us believe in unicorns and the government’s ability to print and borrow money ad infinitum.
Too many people only believe that the money the government spends is money they print. Many of these are tax payers.
The conflation of deficit and debt just puts people’s brains into idle/off state.
Too many people also fail to understand that ‘[c]entralization of credit in the hands of the state, by means of a national bank with state capital and an exclusive monopoly’ was one of the major planks in Marx’s “Communist Manifesto”. Absent the implementation of ‘Hamilton’s Curse’ by archfiend Woodrow Wilson in 1913, we wouldn’t be standing on the precipice of Federal tyranny today.
Lincoln created the first of the national banks.
Not that it changes your points.
Story tip
Climate change made Hurricane Melissa four times more likely, say scientists
Researchers at Imperial College London estimated that in a world without climate change, a weaker hurricane would have been about 12% less damaging. – Sky News
A world without climate change?
One of my students asked just last week whether another professor’s assertion: “Hurricanes were more powerful now DUE to climate change” – was accurate.
So, I did a search to get the latest, most complete, possible answer.
The answer is NO.
There are neither more nor more powerful tropical cyclones (to cover all possibilities) in all basins whether they make landfall or not.
In fact, 2025 will likely end up as the lowest year in the past 45 years (since 1980), with only eight major storms in all basins, including H. Melissa now churning through the Atlantic as a Cat 1.
The data attached are from NOAA-NCIS, compiled and plotted.
The real answer is “We don’t know and cannot find out.”
No! The answer is the actual data says no.
Whs:
In the DOE’s Climate Working Group report [Chapter 6.2, p48] it says there has been a slight increase in major hurricanes globally, but no increase in frequency.
https://www.energy.gov/sites/default/files/2025-07/DOE_Critical_Review_of_Impacts_of_GHG_Emissions_on_the_US_Climate_July_2025.pdf
And just for fun here is Judith Curry’s first take on the Dessler & Kopp et al critique of the CWG report.
https://judithcurry.com/2025/09/02/doe-climate-assessment-report-feedback/
The DOE report discusses the global frequency for major hurricanes, shown in Figure 6.2.1. To quote:
“There is substantial year-to-year and decadal variability, a weak decrease in the number of hurricanes, and a slight but insignificant increase in the number of major hurricanes. These two trends combine to create an overall increase in the proportion of major hurricanes.”
In ordinary language –
There were not more major tropical cyclones, but MAYBE fewer weaker ones.
That report came out in July 21, 2025, and could not possibly include the 2025 tropical cyclone season. To the 28th of October, 2025, from 1980, there is no evidence from the NOAA-NCIS data base of any statistically significant increase in the number of major tropical cyclones. The evidence for a decline is also weak due to the statistics of small numbers, a short observation period, and very large fluctuations,due to El Nino – La NIna with ~opposite effects.
The report also mentions 50 tropical cyclones, of 64+ knots, i.e. Cat 1 hurricanes. I do not see any reason to exclude tropical storms, which weakens the case for an increase a bit further.
I also had the advantage of the nearly complete 2025 season data: only 8 major TCs including H. Melissa, and time running out. Even if the number doubles before the close of the season, now unlikely, it will still be lowest since 1980.
I dispute none of this. But I am impressed that even if everyone is right (or everyone is wrong), we are having the discussion in terms of exquisite statistical techniques.
No emergency in the history of history, demanding the expenditure of all our treasure and living standards to avert destruction, was ever that tenuous.
PBS NOVA had a program a couple of days ago about three nominally 100-year floods. However, what didn’t get mentioned was the increase in population in the last century, and the resultant impervious surface increase, which resulted in more people being impacted and more runoff from the increase in pavement and roofs. These were not objective comparisons.
I first saw that with ABC News who then went on to report historical hurricane, such as the 1935 Labor Day hurricane that were as bad or worse.
The first recorded hurricane was by Cabesa de Vaca in 1528, when his Armada stopped in Cuba for resupply. Of 2,500 men and 200 ships, 80 survived. The survivors built 4 barges and sailed to Florida. They attempted to walk to Mexico, battling gators and indians along the way, 4 survived. You can find the incredible story on the internet.
https://www.tshaonline.org/handbook/entries/cabeza-de-vaca-lvar-nunez
Interesting, there is also a fascinating translation of his amazing ‘Narrative’ (Castaways) by Frances M. López-Walker with a 15 page introduction by Enríque Pupo-Walker, 1993, University of California Press. There is also a little different route map from your link which is not surprising considering that the smaller Texas rivers were not mapped completely correctly until three centuries later by Austin.
Of course, California not understanding winds in the 21th century as well as Alvar apparently learned doesn’t seem possible. Except for those who sail without motors, of course, still some natural selection. Many of us understood (un) renewable’s limitations well over four decades ago, unfortunately not enough political ‘leaders,’ among others supposedly well educated.
There were no hurricanes until Europeans showed up. Because, y’know, natives were “stewards of the land”.
Funny how that hurricane was Cat 5 when it hit Jamaica, Cat 4 as it crossed, Cat 3 as it went to sea, and is not a Cat 2. Where is the climate change making it the worst ever hurricane? Travelling at 1 to 8 mph, the ocean could not be that much cooler where it is now than where it formed.
Typo: and is NOW a Cat 2….
The Savanna-La- Mer Hurricane of October 1780 came ashore with a 20 foot storm surge during The Little Ice Age and it was only the second deadliest hurricane that month. https://www.aoml.noaa.gov/hurricane_blog/235th-anniversary-of-the-savanna-la-mer-hurricane/
Colder worlds are stormier worlds.
How is “damage” measured? In inflated dollars or an increased number of people affected in a growing population?
Both. Read Roger Pielke, Jr. & et al concerning loss normalization studies.
No, that is not quite right.
The money did not just disappear.
It disappeared into the pockets of a cadre of crony oligarchs, raking in $billions from the taxpayer aided by politicians who were funded by the oligarchs to vote as they did. It is and was an abandonment of responsibility on the part of politicians to spend taxpayer dollars wisely. They deserve to be drawn and quartered for their malfeasance.
Well, you can not steal all the money by operating in just one domain.
You must be all over the place.
NGO’s, climate,quantitative easing,MiC, drugs.
Agreed, it is across the board. It is abysmal corruption. The energy system is a major expenditure, but not the only, or even the largest one – e.g. Health Care…
Public lynching would be too good (as a court ordered sentence only).
Not yet time for pitchforks and torches, but getting closer every day.
Bring back the guillotine!
With a dull, rusty blade.
I gave you an upvote, but it wouldn’t really make any difference at all to the guy losing his head.
But it’s the thought that counts!
A dull blade would tear and crush rather than slice. The rust was just to add insult to injury.
It is in the nature of normal humans to forgive and forget and to rationalize. Zealotry does not persist across generations in normal humans who prefer to be left alone to persist their efforts at a decent life. Unfortunately, the perpetrators are not normal humans and return to the trough; sparking another round of necessary cleansing. The stability of our civilization is an interesting challenge.
Interestingly enough, the last time it was used in France was 1939.
To stop its use is treason
W. E., One of your most important essays. Thanks.
Regarding your “simple solution“:
In 2007 Washington State university educators were give the option to leave the State pension program. My wife and I signed the documents as soon as the office could provide the papers. {never joined the union either}
[full disclosure: after several years, we got all $$ into Vanguard funds – that’s not financial advice, it just worked for us]
Heh, I got drunk in Pullman once when I was doing my geology field camp at the University of Idaho. Ahh, good times…
The result was both foreseeable and inevitable. But Calpers will never admit it.
And Calpers now has a nifty website up claiming that under Biden, the ‘final’ federal pension federal rule permits ESG considerations to be within the fiduciary duty. True, but irrelevant for two reasons. Under Trump the unsound Biden rule has already been changed. And, last time I checked, Calpers was a state not federal pension fund. They admit that in a fine print footnote on about page 24, but claim the federal Biden guidance was ‘informative’.
So they wasted union money completely legally, no consequences?
The board of directors of CalPers is elected by it’s members.
Unions have been a disaster for workers and worse for the country.
😄😆😅🤣😂
That’s right up there with “More in need of a **than any white man in history.”
The pension funds for some European countries and the UK seem to be in the same boat: over investment in wind and solar development schemes. Pensioners will be cut off high and low if a country’s industry is also cut off, eliminating contributions into the retirement schemes.
All the ships in the Trans-Atlantic slave trade were powered by clean green, sustainable renewable, biodegradable wind power.
And the trans-Saharan slave trade operated on shank’s mare, even more eco-wonderful.
Global climate. The greatest issue is this, by definition:
Until someone proves the earth has just one climate (it doesn’t) and then defines what the optimum climate is (never in equilibrium), then no one can prove that either (a) things are getting worse or (b) we are moving towards the optimum. The definition absolutely must include measurable parameters.
No one has proven that 1880 was the optimum climate yet it is used as the cherry picked beginning of the temperature & CO2 curves. Aside from that it is curious that 1850 to 1880 was when oil drilling started becoming mainstream.
50 years of predictions of doom and we are still here.
Evidence that things on earth (related to environment, life, all the good stuff) are improving creates the perception that we are faced with a positive outcome.
Evidence that mandating solutions to an ill-defined (or non-existent) problem are wreaking havoc in the environment world-wide and negatively impacting the well being of 8 billion people.
Yes, without agreement on what an optimum climate is, there is no way to decide whether a changing climate is getting better or worse. However, that doesn’t stop prophets of doom from making unsupported claims.
Jerry Brown was the instigator behind allowing the public employees to unionize. Virtually all the unions in Calif support democrats because that’s where their basic bread and butter lies. The teachers union, and the smaller unions such as the prison guard unions and state police unions support democrats. The service unions such as the SEIU also support democrats.
Some pension plans such as the Univ of California are not part of CalPERS. So decisions are not up to state bureaucracy.I worked as an academic full time at UCLA for 3 years and part time for quite a few years more while I had a private practice. UCLA wanted to get rid of some employees in the 90’s and basically gave me a small golden handshake to get rid of me so I get a small pension. I would have just resigned had they asked but why look a gift horse in the mouth.
Just so you know, the standard response (diversion) from public pension fund managers is to express the huge allocation loss as a percentage of the total portfolio to deflect attention.
Thank you Willis
Calpers, the poster child of dysfunctional California.
The only companies left will be the incompetent subsidy hucksters cozying up to incompetent politicians. What could possibly go wrong?
The rest of the companies, like Tesla, will have gone to thriving states like Texas, Florida, etc.
Willis, I understand your point about a bad investment choice. However, the investment was only about 0.19% of the fund value in 2007. Estimates I found vary on the actual fund size in 2007, but based on a $247.7B fund. A fund that size is hard to diversify, so I am not sure I see the grave error here when looking from that perspective. That being said that was only 1 fund, not sure what else was put into ESG type fantasy funds that underperformed.
Don’t get me wrong, I wholeheartedly agree these plans are not sustainable, have perverse incentives, pay outrageous and suspect fees and are totally unfair to the taxpayer.
I agree the big concern is the percent funded. From what I see the fund was 87% funded in 2007. As you noted, today there is a big hole (21%) and although the coverage percentage has been lower (71 in 2023), this year’s stock market returns helped increase the rate to 79% funded. Again, Still way too low! The other issue is they are basing that underfunding on a %6.8 annual return going forward. Drop that just a bit and it starts becoming a black hole. (6%-72% funded 5%-approx. 67%) Some scary numbers.
First, yes, you’re right, that was only one fund, and likely not unique in the losses.
Next, the percentage of the fund value is totally immaterial. These incompetent fools pissed $330 million down a rathole. The value of that is what counts, not whether it’s only 0.0001 percent of California’s GDP or any other percentage. Three-hundred-thirty megabucks could do an immense amount of good regardless of percentages.
Next, why should a fund that size be any harder to diversify than my own investments? X% in the S&P & Dow Jones, X% in gold, etc, etc. The size of X makes no difference. See below for how Norway and Singapore do it.
Finally, you’re also right that the big issue is that it’s only 87% funded. This is a crime, and the numbers are indeed scary.
Thanks for making interesting points,
w.
===
Norway’s and Singapore’s sovereign wealth funds have different portfolio allocations, with Norway’s fund predominantly invested in listed equities and Singapore’s favoring a more balanced approach between equities, fixed income, and real assets.
Norway Sovereign Wealth Fund (Government Pension Fund Global) 2025
• Equities: 71.2%
• Fixed Income: 26.6%
• Unlisted Real Estate: 1.8%
• Renewable Energy Infrastructure: 0.4%
Nearly 40% of Norway’s equity holdings are in U.S. stocks, with heavy investments in major technology companies and significant global diversification. [1] [2] [3]
Singapore Sovereign Wealth Funds (primarily GIC) 2025
• Equities (public and private): 51%
• This includes both U.S./Americas and other markets, with 49% of the geographic exposure classified as “Americas.”
• Fixed Income (bonds): 26%
• Real Assets (real estate and infrastructure): 23%
Singapore’s GIC portfolio is more balanced, reflecting a substantial commitment to real assets and a moderate tilt towards equities. While the exact sector/region split is less transparent than Norway’s, the most recent asset allocation figures show a slight increase in U.S. exposure and expansion in real assets. [4] [5] [6]
These figures represent the latest available reported allocations as of October 2025. Both funds sometimes adjust their public disclosures or reporting clarity, so estimates are based on the most authoritative 2025 sources. [2] [5] [6] [3] [1] [4]
[1](https://www.cnbc.com/2025/10/29/norway-2-trillion-sovereign-wealth-fund-q3-earnings.html)
[2](https://www.nbim.no/en/investments/the-funds-value/)
[3](https://sites.duke.edu/finance/2025/06/06/norwegian-sovereign-wealth-fund/)
[4](https://www.top1000funds.com/2025/07/gic-ups-us-equities-allocation-despite-valuation-worries/)
[5](https://www.reuters.com/world/asia-pacific/singapores-sovereign-wealth-fund-gic-posts-slowest-investment-return-5-years-2025-07-24/)
[6](https://www.reuters.com/default/opacity-puts-sting-singapore-swfs-low-returns-2025-07-25/)
The Norway pension fund is about $2 trillion for 5 million population, or $400,000 per person.
It is invested mostly in equities of private companies throughout the world
The Norwegian government coerces a small percentage of total assets each year to finance its socialistic follies.
I understand your points. Our view is different on the renewable portion. At the time was the “bet” on renewables as bad as you say? I disagree there but of course, in the end you are correct, and I understand your belief that it was stupid.
Note a couple of things about your example funds.
Results: A quick ChatGpt review shows, neither of these funds outperformed CaLPERS .
Fund 5-Year Return (%) / 10-Year Return (%) / 20-Year Return (%)
CaLPERS 6.0 / 7.1 / 6.7
Norway GPFG 8.0 / 6.5 / 6.7
Singapore 4.4 / 4.6 / 5.7
Again we agree on a lot, the CaLPERS pension model is not sustainable.
I like the info in your link Number 3 regarding the Norwegian GPFG fund. The info includes; By law, only the real return on the fund — estimated at around 3% annually — can be used in the national budget. (Apply that to the pensions:)
Renewables: That link also shows that the Norwegian fund also invests in the area of Renewable Infrastructure:
Investments in offshore wind, solar, and other clean energy projects, particularly in Europe and North America.The mandate includes unlisted infrastructure for renewable energy production, not broader infrastructure assets like highways or ports.I think Europe is a good example of how destructive those investments and retiring of fossil and Nuclear can be to energy needs, especially with all the info we have today… and the fund is still investing there.
There are different ways to diversify and “philosophies” on the mix. Many funds like this take more aggressive or speculative positions to try an juice returns.
Personally, I noticed technology being a big part because many funds/ETFs have the same large TECH companies in each of them to various degrees. Sometimes they are more overweighted due to growth, so one needs to pay attention to this when diversifying. Even the Norwegian Fund has a heavy exposure in technology, it has been great for a while now….also The fund occasionally takes minor active positions, with internal mandates to outperform its benchmark slightly. So probably not so different than CaLPERS.
IN the end the mission of these funds are different. Trust me I am not defending the government pension system. it is not sustainable. There are reasons most all private companies did away with pensions. I know that firsthand from my work experience, two companies I worked for offered pensions in the day and have since retired them.
Certainly an interesting topic.
Nothing CA,NY, OR, or WA does anymore surprises me.
Very sad Willis. I come from a family of strong union and government supporters. Both unions and government have their place but both have accumulated power far beyond what they should have and nearly zero accountability. It is a bad thing.
All of the good things that unions have claimed to have provided for workers, were already in the works before the first union was formed.
To the extent that unions drove wages above the market rate, they only ended up destroying jobs. Just as the minimum wage does for unskilled labor.
When you include the union dues and the wages lost when on strike, unionized workers see no benefit.
They should have invested in tulip bulbs. At least when those crash you can still look at the pretty flowers.
Remember, California pays large salaries and retirements because they have to pay more to attract and retain the best talent. At least, that’s what they claim.
That may be what they claim, but I see no real world evidence to support the belief that they have hired the best talent.
I recall a few decades back when the Federal government pushed to get “the best and brightest” into government employment.
Now the obese government is letting go thousands that are such best and brightest they cannot land positions in the commercial sector. Hmmmm…..
You can steal all the money some of the time.
And, you can steal some of the money all of the time.
But, you can not steal all of the money all of the time.
Unless you work for government.
WORK for the government?
Government employees are supposed to serve the people, not conspire against them
The less government the better
I had no idea more than 40 million were on food stamps and no meaningful work requirements.
How many of them are fat, uneducated, untrained, useless detritus, drug and alcohol abusers, could not even hold a job?
Are they counted as part of the labor force?
Those people likely suck from other government programs.
How many of that 40 million are illegal aliens?
The longer the shutdown lasts, the more crap is revealed.
The Democrats love big government to screw the rest of us.
A family of 4 has to make less than $31000/y to qualify for SNAP
Work requirements are sporadic. Usually not enforced.
41 million get SNAP benefits
The SNAP program costs $8 BILLLION PER MONTH, or $48 billion/y
The USDA has $5 billion in contingency funds reserved for emergencies
Two judges ordered the USDA to use contingency funds funds.
Democrat not voting on a clean CR to end the shutdown is an action of will, not emergency
I just learned 41.7 million people were enrolled in SNAP, and the cost was $99.8 billion in 2024, per USDA.
The law says, the USDA cannot spend any of its contingency funds, unless authorized by Congress, but the Democrats do not want to vote to pass a clean CR to restart the government.
Those pension fund managers who lose money and screw up people’s lives are right down there with the people who import boatloads of illegal drugs that screw up people’s lives, and don’t pay taxes on the massive profits of f0cking over drug dependent people.
You may be all ‘weed never hurt anyone,’ however, I see that most of the people who smoke weed are total f0ck-ups, because of smoking weed. Every little tent encampment—full of f0ck-ups—I see, sits under a perpetual cloud of green.
“illegal drugs that screw up people’s lives”
Were they forced to take illegal drugs?
In some cases, yes. Consider how pimps controls their “workers.”
I think a valid criticism of Willis’ argument is to be made along the very same lines he makes himself on stuff like “The Antarctic is melting” when he shows the the “huge” melt values are tiny compared to the whole and basically the melt is just noise.
Well similarly $330M out of CALPers market value of $592B is 0.06% and really just noise.
Tim, on the other hand, $330,000,000 and $330,000,000 there – pretty soon you’re talking real money.
I sympathise with managers of vast amounts of money – it’s not easy to find mugs who will work hard to give you back more than you gave them, while you sit on your clacker telling everybody how clever you are.
I believe that the US national debt is around 38 trillion dollars. Obviously, the US Government has run out of one type of sucker, so it borrows money from others – who live in hope that the Government can extract $38,000,000,000,000 from its taxpayers in the foreseeable future.
That’s a bit over $1,000,000 from every man, woman, and child, in the US. Good luck with paying off the national debt.
Here’s a thought – revalue the currency – one NewDollar is equal to a trillion current dollars! Pay off the creditors – $38 NewDollars – and start afresh. Maybe currency backed by physical gold reserves? Seems to have worked in the past.<g>
Michael, $38 trillion divided by 340 million people is ~ $112,000 per person, not one million per person as you state above.
Follow me for more math tips.
w.
Nope. Not true.
Why not?
Because the trivially small melt from the Antarctic has no intrinsic value.
$330 MILLION, on the other hand, could do a whole lot of good in a host of places.
Sorry, Tim, but a third of a billion dollars is not noise. It is a callous waste of taxpayer money.
w.
Investing doesn’t work like that.
Its true because not all investments make money. Investing is a risky business and there is never any guarantee that money invested in any class should provide a return.
In this case what looked like a good investment in 2007 turned out not to be so. During that same time investors certainly had failed fossil fuel investments and successful green energy investments.
If you were saying the $330M investments were a bad ones, then sure. But that’s the nature of the game and overall CALPers returned 11.6% returns for 24-25, apparently. The $330M over the 18 years is truly noise in investment terms.
The issue is that at some point in the insuring 18 years, it should have been recognized that the investment sucked and should have been cleared. Willis is pointing out the continued involvement with a rathole is not what a fiduciary requirement means.
I would be interested in knowing how many long term investments, of any size, are there that have a record of continual losses exist. Investing in ratholes makes one wonder what relationship exists between the investor and the rathole.
Thanks, Tim. The point is, they invested in green dreams, scams, and fantasies for ESG reasons. That’s not fulfilling their fiduciary duties, and you’re trying to justify that.
w.
For someone who prides themselves in rational, evidence based arguments, I dont see any evidence from you to back this claim up. How exactly do you know they weren’t making investments that seemed valid at the time?
Is that a rationalization for ignoring theft if only a few people do it?
Thank you for highlighting at least a little of the stupidity and corruption in progressive California.
At least the California taxpayers will be rewarded with plentiful and cheap energy in the form of electricity and gasoline. Oh wait…
Are you back on “X”, Willis?
Yep. I kept appealing on an occasional basis. One day they said “Ooops, we made a mistake, you’re alll good!”
Go figure …
w.
Good!
An assertion where the facts are not in evidence.
Yep. I kept appealing on an occasional basis. One day they said “Ooops, we made a mistake, you’re alll good!”
Go figure …
w.
Minor complaint: I wish you hadn’t used the image of 18th century Kinderdijk water pumping windmills as the head illustration in an article on the uselessness of modern electric-generating ones. The Kinderdijk windmills and many others like them kept the North Sea out of much of Holland from their construction in 1738-1740 to pretty much modern times, and the ones pictured still work today.