That's an awful lot for an empty office. Since COVID-19 companies across the country learned how to operate remotely and use various tools- Zoom, Microsoft teams, etc.- to conduct meetings online. 2.1 Billion dollars is a sizeable investment that might not be necessary or beneficial. Google being at the cutting edge of technology may even have a superior way to conduct business from home, so I don't understand this particular real estate investment. I wonder what the potential financial benefit of conducting business in person verse remotely. Conversely, how much money, besides this purchase, could be saved by not meeting in the same area?

Economics Vs Ethics Why is death a factor included in squid games and why don't people realize they are worth more than the monetary obligations or debt they have? Squid games could have easily been executed without lose of life. In fact a real life squid game has been put together and executed with a large cash prize paid out to the winner. Even following the premise of the show in that a rich man wanted to recapture an enjoyable part of his life thus creating the squid games did not necessitate death. What use is money to the dead; none. IN reality the characters in this show are not the only individuals playing with their lives. Satan waives prize money at people who embezzle money, deal/ use drugs, are involved in human trafficking, etc. all focused on the possibility of receiving a prize not grasping the fact their risking their life with lottery odds. Unfortunately, people place money in a higher priority than their morals and in this case their own morality.

Easily one of the most miss quoted and misunderstood verses in the bible is : For the love of money is the root of all evil: which while some coveted after, they have erred from the faith, and pierced themselves through with many sorrows. 1 Timothy 6:10 KJV Note the scripture does say that money IS evil, yet sooooo many people misquote this verse. The truth is money is a tool that is not good nor evil, but can be used for either purpose. A good use for a hammer would be to use it to build something for myself and others. A bad use for a hammer would be to use it to damage property and/ or to hurt someone. In either scenario it is how I am using the hammer that is good or bad not the hammer itself. Also, the Study of Economics is NOT the Study of evil. However, there is biblical evidence that God wants us to know about the production, consumption, and transfer of wealth. From Genesis through Revelation God has provided substance for our consumption, charged us to produce, and requires that we are not selfish but willfully provide for those who cannot provide for themselves. He is our source but he is definitely interested on how we steward over what he provides for us.

Good afternoon Ms. Polson, Is marijuana money greener when it's bought in the streets or given with prescriptions? Can I bust (read quickly there's a double meaning) this debate wide open. Legalizing, marijuana has far more benefits than allowing this substance to remain illegal. The follow are a few reasons why: - Making marijuana will reduce crime - There is already a market for the substance - Yes, marijuana IS a gateway drug, but currently the streets are the gate keepers. A street dealer will lace marijuana with cocaine or other drugs to get people hooked on more products - Fewer people affected by bad product would equal fewer unnecessary ER visits - The DEA could shift their focus on more dangerous drugs - This would create massive new revenue - This could turn a public problem into public profit Legalizing marijuana is a political, social economic, and medical topic that has benefits in multiple areas. Not to mention people do not overdose or blackout on weed, like alcohol produces drunk driving and becoming blackout drunk. IT is a controversial topic primarily because cannabis has been deemed an illegal substance for so long, not because it actually posses more problems. Very Respectfully Non- weed user Jamal J. Berry Sr. "jJ"

Good morning Ethan, I have an impossible mission for you. How does LEGO let go of past mind sets and set their sights into new areas, yet still building off the same block? As you mentioned in your initial blog post, the LEGO company made a huge leap from wooden toys to plastic blocks, which has made all the difference in the world. In what areas can LEGO go into a new lucrative wave. Here's a few suggestions: - LEGO lenses: an app that can interface with your iphone/ Samsung software and turn any picture taken into a LEGO picture - LEGO learning: link up with a current learning app that works with online elementary teaching - LEGO life: Similar, to Pokemon GO have an interactive LEGO game that users can interface in real time and discover LEGO objets. As well as LEGO is doing today, they have to stay on the cutting edge to the don't end up like yesterday's other block toys, Block Buster, or Sears. By the way I too had a LEGO set and bought them for my kids. Very Respectfully Jamal J. Berry Sr. "JJ"

What does this have to do with economics, besides everything? It was estimated that Americans spent approximately $4.7 billion dollars on gas during Memorial Day weekend. The choice of which energy source is used has tremendous economic ripple effects. There are multiple financial considerations that aren't always mentioned at the forefront of the energy argument. Considerations such as: - The price for building enough wind turbines and solar panels to replace fossil fuels - The additional costs of implementing devices to convert the energy - The cost to dispose of used solar panels - The cost of disposing the current fossil fuel items - The development costs to address what to do in situations where the wind doesn't blow and the sun does shine; not a joke these are actual realistic situations. These are a few questions in the area of the economic impact that must be addressed, answered, and activated prior to switching from fossil fuels.

This video is the beddrock of this blog. Green energy is viewed as the way of the future, deemed as "better, but is it really. Those who promote it-- such as Leonardo DiCaprio-- live lives that contradict the movement. Yet, I don't fully fault them. I take issue with the actual sources of energy that are being promoted. I believe that fossil fuels are the primary source of energy because of the dependable energy that they provide. I submit that solar and wind should be viewed as additional energy sources, not replacements.