Previously I discussed government mandating of things like building windmills, which are not economical as the main supply of electricity. Recently Bill Clinton was misquoted about slowing the economy to "save the planet for our grandchildren." What he actually said was just as bad. The millions of "green" jobs that Hillary wants to create are uneconomical, as discussed in this blurb by Don Luskin:

TO DOWD OR NOT TO DOWD?

Some readers have complained that I "Dowdified" -- that is, isolated and took out of context -- Bill Clinton's quote that "We just have to slow down our economy..." in order to address global warming. Anyone who clicked on the link I provided found this context:

"And maybe America, and Europe, and Japan, and Canada -- the rich counties -- would say, 'OK, we just have to slow down our economy and cut back our greenhouse gas emissions 'cause we have to save the planet for our grandchildren.' We could do that.

"But if we did that, you know as well as I do, China and India and Indonesia and Vietnam and Mexico and Brazil and the Ukraine, and all the other countries will never agree to stay poor to save the planet for our grandchildren. The only way we can do this is if we get back in the world's fight against global warming and prove it is good economics that we will create more jobs to build a sustainable economy that saves the planet for our children and grandchildren. It is the only way it will work.

"And guess what? The only places in the world today in rich countries where you have rising wages and declining inequality are places that have generated more jobs than rich countries because they made a commitment we didn't. They got serious about a clean, efficient, green, independent energy future… If you want that in America, if you want the millions of jobs that will come from it, if you would like to see a new energy trust fund to finance solar energy and wind energy and biomass and responsible bio-fuels and electric hybrid plug-in vehicles that will soon get 100 miles a gallon, if you want every facility in this country to be made maximally energy efficient that will create millions and millions and millions of jobs, vote for her. She'll give it to you. She's got the right energy plan."

Okay, so I "Dowdified" old Bill. So sue me. And now that I've revealed the whole context, let's rip it to shreds, since it's actually worse than the "Dowdified" short version.
Clinton indulges in the fantasy that great profits can be had and much economic activity stimulated by government mandating that people do things they wouldn't do without the mandate -- as though the mandate were a kind of all-else-equal add-on to the economic environment. In fact, when people are forced by government to do inefficient things like make plug-in electric cars, they are deflected from the more efficient economic activity in which they would otherwise be engaged. If Bill's logic were correct, then Hillary (as president) should mandate that everyone dig holes in his neighbor's yard and fill them up again, and charge $10,000 per hole each time. Just think of the economic activity that would result from everyone doing that all at the same time! But don't think about all the economic activity that really added value that those people were doing already, that they'll have to stop doing when they start trading hole digging and filling services with each other. There, all you readers who were so concerned I was being unfair to Bill Clinton. Feel better?

In a previous post I discussed the situation with wind power in Great Britain. That is one of the places that Bill Clinton thinks is creating "Green" jobs; obviously a fantansy. Actually the British may be achieving "equality" in the same way the communists did; that is, by making everyone equally bad off.