• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

economy quetions???

Lonecowboy

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2006
Messages
1,990
Reaction score
0
Location
eastern Montana
#1; Can a person be "pro union" and also "probusiness" at the same time in today's economy? or are they competative? Which one will grow the economy more and why? What effect does unions have on our poor economy?


#2; What part does the "rabid enviromentalistt" have to do with the poor economy? How much influence do they have over say EPA etc. and how does this effect our economy?


#3; what political party seems to be more "pro union" and more "pro envirmentalist"? What efect does this have on our economy?
 

Steve

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 13, 2005
Messages
16,547
Reaction score
0
Location
Wildwood New Jersey
#1; Can a person be "pro union" and also "probusiness" at the same time in today's economy?

it really depends more on the business.. if you have to pay idle union employees, an good business person will put them to work..

some of that work is backlogged maintenance, and doing that in itself will generate demand for service parts, and material..

if the union employee can be used outside his/her specific job description..

if your able to do the upgrades with the existing labor force, then it is good for the economy..

but often that cooperation between union/management doesn't happen.,.. so businesses just lay off the workforce.

 

Tex

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 13, 2007
Messages
2,156
Reaction score
0
Location
Texas
Lonecowboy said:
#1; Can a person be "pro union" and also "probusiness" at the same time in today's economy? or are they competative? Which one will grow the economy more and why? What effect does unions have on our poor economy?

Businesses should be so run that unions are not necessary. When they are run poorly, the economy needs to have jobs that these people can move to so that the rewards for treating employees poorly means you lose good employees. The adversarial relationship between labor and management is costly and and that alone should make businesses avoid the necessity of bargaining of their labor force against them.


#2; What part does the "rabid enviromentalistt" have to do with the poor economy? How much influence do they have over say EPA etc. and how does this effect our economy?

Rabid environmentalists shouldn't have a lot to do with the economy. Most environmental costs should be paid by those businesses making the costs--- if you pollute then you are the one having to clean it up instead of floating it down to someone else. Environmentalism should not be taken to the extreme as it seems the EPA has done on going after some cattle feeders calling hay a pollutant. It shows that the environmentalists are sometimes kooks but you could say the same about any group of people. Put plainly, there are some kooks out there in every group and those kooks should be marginalized. We are a part of the environment and so we should try to keep it livable and healthy. It shouldn't cost any jobs and when you get a rabid or kook environmentalist, they should be marginalized.

Companies should not be able to compete with each other based on how much they get others to pay for their costs like polluting. China doesn't have the same kind of environmental laws as we do so they are selling the short term for the long term. We should not be allowing them to compete with companies here in the U.S. that have to abide by environmental laws?



#3; what political party seems to be more "pro union" and more "pro envirmentalist"? What efect does this have on our economy?
If we make all companies follow the same laws, then they all have to compete with the same rules. When we allow other countries to not have these type of costly laws and then import their goods, we are stabbing ourselves in the foot by allowing some to have competitive advantage and not count all the costs of production.

Do you know that the U.S. sold a reported 2.9 million tons of coal to China in the first six months of last year. Does anyone think we don't get the pollution from it?


Lonecowboy, you have tried to make big and broad generalizations as if they were the only possibilities. They are not the answers to the right questions and the questions are rigged that way.
 

hopalong

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 12, 2006
Messages
8,019
Reaction score
0
Location
Az.
Tex said:
Lonecowboy said:
#1; Can a person be "pro union" and also "probusiness" at the same time in today's economy? or are they competative? Which one will grow the economy more and why? What effect does unions have on our poor economy?

Businesses should be so run that unions are not necessary. When they are run poorly, the economy needs to have jobs that these people can move to so that the rewards for treating employees poorly means you lose good employees. The adversarial relationship between labor and management is costly and and that alone should make businesses avoid the necessity of bargaining of their labor force against them.


#2; What part does the "rabid enviromentalistt" have to do with the poor economy? How much influence do they have over say EPA etc. and how does this effect our economy?

Rabid environmentalists shouldn't have a lot to do with the economy. Most environmental costs should be paid by those businesses making the costs--- if you pollute then you are the one having to clean it up instead of floating it down to someone else. Environmentalism should not be taken to the extreme as it seems the EPA has done on going after some cattle feeders calling hay a pollutant. It shows that the environmentalists are sometimes kooks but you could say the same about any group of people. Put plainly, there are some kooks out there in every group and those kooks should be marginalized. We are a part of the environment and so we should try to keep it livable and healthy. It shouldn't cost any jobs and when you get a rabid or kook environmentalist, they should be marginalized.

Companies should not be able to compete with each other based on how much they get others to pay for their costs like polluting. China doesn't have the same kind of environmental laws as we do so they are selling the short term for the long term. We should not be allowing them to compete with companies here in the U.S. that have to abide by environmental laws?



#3; what political party seems to be more "pro union" and more "pro envirmentalist"? What efect does this have on our economy?
If we make all companies follow the same laws, then they all have to compete with the same rules. When we allow other countries to not have these type of costly laws and then import their goods, we are stabbing ourselves in the foot by allowing some to have competitive advantage and not count all the costs of production.

Do you know that the U.S. sold a reported 2.9 million tons of coal to China in the first six months of last year. Does anyone think we don't get the pollution from it?


Lonecowboy, you have tried to make big and broad generalizations as if they were the only possibilities. They are not the answers to the right questions and the questions are rigged that way.

And YOu dont TEX????? You have more BROAD generational comments than oldtimers BUTT and that covers alot of territory, :wink: :wink:
 

Tex

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 13, 2007
Messages
2,156
Reaction score
0
Location
Texas
hopalong said:
Tex said:
Lonecowboy said:
#1; Can a person be "pro union" and also "probusiness" at the same time in today's economy? or are they competative? Which one will grow the economy more and why? What effect does unions have on our poor economy?

Businesses should be so run that unions are not necessary. When they are run poorly, the economy needs to have jobs that these people can move to so that the rewards for treating employees poorly means you lose good employees. The adversarial relationship between labor and management is costly and and that alone should make businesses avoid the necessity of bargaining of their labor force against them.


#2; What part does the "rabid enviromentalistt" have to do with the poor economy? How much influence do they have over say EPA etc. and how does this effect our economy?

Rabid environmentalists shouldn't have a lot to do with the economy. Most environmental costs should be paid by those businesses making the costs--- if you pollute then you are the one having to clean it up instead of floating it down to someone else. Environmentalism should not be taken to the extreme as it seems the EPA has done on going after some cattle feeders calling hay a pollutant. It shows that the environmentalists are sometimes kooks but you could say the same about any group of people. Put plainly, there are some kooks out there in every group and those kooks should be marginalized. We are a part of the environment and so we should try to keep it livable and healthy. It shouldn't cost any jobs and when you get a rabid or kook environmentalist, they should be marginalized.

Companies should not be able to compete with each other based on how much they get others to pay for their costs like polluting. China doesn't have the same kind of environmental laws as we do so they are selling the short term for the long term. We should not be allowing them to compete with companies here in the U.S. that have to abide by environmental laws?



#3; what political party seems to be more "pro union" and more "pro envirmentalist"? What efect does this have on our economy?
If we make all companies follow the same laws, then they all have to compete with the same rules. When we allow other countries to not have these type of costly laws and then import their goods, we are stabbing ourselves in the foot by allowing some to have competitive advantage and not count all the costs of production.

Do you know that the U.S. sold a reported 2.9 million tons of coal to China in the first six months of last year. Does anyone think we don't get the pollution from it?


Lonecowboy, you have tried to make big and broad generalizations as if they were the only possibilities. They are not the answers to the right questions and the questions are rigged that way.

And YOu dont TEX????? You have more BROAD generational comments than oldtimers BUTT and that covers alot of territory, :wink: :wink:

They are all there to invite you into the discussion but sometimes it means running, not just hopping along.

Tex
 

Steve

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 13, 2005
Messages
16,547
Reaction score
0
Location
Wildwood New Jersey
Do you know that the U.S. sold a reported 2.9 million tons of coal to China in the first six months of last year. Does anyone think we don't get the pollution from it?

we have abundant coal.. and we have basically two choices.. burn it here with stringent environmental safeguards.. or sell it.

China has more choices.. buy from US, or someone else.. or dig more of their own..

as we destroy our power industry and export all our mined coal to China a country that could care less about global warming, pollution or even where the coal comes from.. the pollution will increase. and eventually the effects of our reduction will be negated by their unwillingness to meet the US EPA standards..

I would prefer to use it here but the EPA is hell bent on destroying coal power generation..

Country↓ Bituminous & Anthracite↓ SubBituminous↓ Lignite↓ TOTAL↓ Percentage of World Total↓
United States 108,501 98,618 30,176 237,295 22.6
Russia 49,088 97,472 10,450 157,010 14.4
China 62,200 33,700 18,600 114,500 12.6

In 2006, China was the top producer of coal with 38% share followed by the USA and India,

we have 22% of the worlds total.. enough to export.. but not nearly enough to control the market and force China to clean up..
 

Mike

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
28,482
Reaction score
0
Location
Montgomery, Al
The Utah Coal Lockup: A trillion dollar Lippo payoff?




By: Sarah Foster

When the President signed the Executive Order designating 1.7 million acres of land in southwest Utah as the Grand Staircase-Escalante National
Monument, his action placed the area off limits to mineral extraction and
development.

The New York Times reported that the monument encloses the largest coal
field in the nation, the Kaiparowitz Plateau, which contains at least 7
billion tons of coal worth over $1 TRILLION.

Kentucky-based company Andalux Resources, which holds leases on 3,400 acres in the area, was planning to open a huge operation (underground, not strip mining) that would have generated 1,000 jobs, $1 million in annual revenue for Kane County, and at least $10 million a year in state and federal taxes, according to the New York Times. Folks living in the area wore black arm bands the day o the signing - but Clinton didn't see them. He chose to make his announcement in a neighboring state. WHY?

Why did he do it? Why lock up $1 trillion worth of coal?

An obvious explanation is he was hoping to secure the environmentalist vote. Though that was no doubt part of his reasoning, he had surely achieved such an objective earlier this summer when he declared the huge area outside Yellowstone National Park a World Heritage Area. Let'' look further.

In the weeks prior to the past election, revelations surfaced almost daily
regarding donations from foreign sources to the Democratic Party and
Clinton's past campaigns. At the center of the controversy was another set
of people to whom Clinton owes a few favors: the Lippo Group, a powerful $5 billion Indonesian conglomerate, founded and owned by the Riady family who, it turned out, had raised and funneled millions of dollars into campaign coffers.

Democrats attempted to downplay the allegations of impropriety. Even if the Clinton campaign and the Party did receive illegal contribution- which is
denied -what, they demanded, had Clinton done for Lippo Group, the Riadys, or Indonesia that really affects this country adversely? Good question. The Payoff

Clinton's announcement at the Grand Canyon was wrapped in political
correctness. "Mining jobs are good jobs, and mining is important to our
national security - but we can't have mines everywhere, and we shouldn't
have mines that threaten national treasures," he told his sycophantic
audience.

But coal is not only important for our nation's security. More importantly,
at the present time it is the most cost-effective fuel for the electric
plants that supply our homes and industries with light, heat and power.

Moreover, the coal at Kaiporowitz Plateau is a kind of coal that is not
found "everywhere." It is very low sulfur, low ash - hence, low polluting -
coal, the kind in high demand for power plants
, such as one being designed
for Ensenada, Mexico. That megawatt giant, presently on the drawing boards, will supply electricity across northern Baja, an area plagued by brownouts.

Had it not been taken off the world market, the logical source of coal for
the Baja plant would be the Kaiparowitz Plateau. Once mined it could be
transported by rail to the ports of Long Beach or Los Angeles, then by barge to Ensenada. Thanks to Clinton, there will be no exporting of Kaiparowitz coal, which means the facility's procurement people will have to look elsewhere for clean non-polluting fuel.

Only two other sources

Besides the Kaiparowitz Plateau, there are only two other known locations in the world where comparable coal is found in sufficient quantities to make
mining it worthwhile. Colombia in South America is one, but it'll be years
before the necessary mining and shipping infrastructure is built.

The other? You got it. Indonesia.

That's right - the coal fields of South Kalimantan (Borneo), Indonesia. Big
plans are online for its development. Indonesia has been a source of coal
for over a century, but the coal varies sharply in terms of quality.
Recently, however, a coal that is very low in sulfur has been discovered. A
number of coal companies are already there, and it's a good bet Lippo Group money is involved. A major company is Adaro Indonesia, of which 20 percent is owned by the Spanish government, 50 percent by New Hope Corp., an Australian firm.

Envirocoal

According to the 1994 report Mineral Industry of Indonesia, by the bureau of Mines, U.S. Dept. of Interior, Adaro aims to produce 15 million tones by the year 2000 of what they call Envirocoal - a reference to its quality. Adaro has for several years anticipated the U.S. as a major market, and has one committed purchaser already: Tampa Electric Co., which signed a long-term contract to purchase 400,000 tones a year from the Indonesian firm.

To handle the shipping of the increased production, new shipping terminals
are being constructed. One huge one is on a neighboring island at a cost of
$1 billion. The P.T. Indonesia bulk Terminal, as the megaport is called, is
owned 50 percent by New How, and 50 percent by "Indonesian interests" (the Lippo Group perhaps), according to the Interior Dept. report.

Massive coal deposits, massive shipping facilities - that spells massive
investment, massive contracts. This isn't some small-0is-beautiful
eco-operation. We're talking real money here, and it's hard to imagine that
the "Lippopotamus" is not in on the action. But even if Lippo's not directly
involved, the Indonesian government, with which Lippo has a cozy
relationship, certainly does. So too will the various foreign investors and
mining companies to whom the Indonesian government has extended an open invitation.

Winners and Losers

In any game there are winners and losers, and there are Americans in the
first category - the investors who put their money in overseas coal mining,
producers of natural gas, which the administration supports wholeheartedly.

Plus, there's a deal between a Little Rock firm and Lippo. According to the
ENERGY ECONOMIST for Sept., 1994, Entergy Group of Little Rock, in
partnership with the Lippo Group of Hong Kong, signed a memorandum of
understanding with the North China Power Corporation for the cooperative
management and expansion of the $1 billion 1,200 megawatt coal-fired Daton 2 power plan in Shanxi Province. Isn't that interesting And where do you think the coal will come from?

The Democrats' question: What has Clinton done for Indonesia that harms the United States? The answer is - with a stroke of his pen he wiped out the
only significant competition to Indonesian coal interests in the world
market before it even got started, a move that at the same time relegates
this country to importer status. His edict will force us into eventual
dependency on foreign producers of coal as we are presently dependent on
overseas sources for oil - an unconscionable situation considering that we
have abundant deposits of both commodities.

The President has given our children a legacy of continued energy
dependence, marked by contrived shortages and crises, the full impact of
which will be sharply felt in the years to come.
 

Larrry

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 23, 2007
Messages
8,645
Reaction score
0
Location
The good ole USA
Mike said:
The Utah Coal Lockup: A trillion dollar Lippo payoff?




By: Sarah Foster

When the President signed the Executive Order designating 1.7 million acres of land in southwest Utah as the Grand Staircase-Escalante National
Monument, his action placed the area off limits to mineral extraction and
development.

The New York Times reported that the monument encloses the largest coal
field in the nation, the Kaiparowitz Plateau, which contains at least 7
billion tons of coal worth over $1 TRILLION.

Kentucky-based company Andalux Resources, which holds leases on 3,400 acres in the area, was planning to open a huge operation (underground, not strip mining) that would have generated 1,000 jobs, $1 million in annual revenue for Kane County, and at least $10 million a year in state and federal taxes, according to the New York Times. Folks living in the area wore black arm bands the day o the signing - but Clinton didn't see them. He chose to make his announcement in a neighboring state. WHY?

Why did he do it? Why lock up $1 trillion worth of coal?

An obvious explanation is he was hoping to secure the environmentalist vote. Though that was no doubt part of his reasoning, he had surely achieved such an objective earlier this summer when he declared the huge area outside Yellowstone National Park a World Heritage Area. Let'' look further.

In the weeks prior to the past election, revelations surfaced almost daily
regarding donations from foreign sources to the Democratic Party and
Clinton's past campaigns. At the center of the controversy was another set
of people to whom Clinton owes a few favors: the Lippo Group, a powerful $5 billion Indonesian conglomerate, founded and owned by the Riady family who, it turned out, had raised and funneled millions of dollars into campaign coffers.

Democrats attempted to downplay the allegations of impropriety. Even if the Clinton campaign and the Party did receive illegal contribution- which is
denied -what, they demanded, had Clinton done for Lippo Group, the Riadys, or Indonesia that really affects this country adversely? Good question. The Payoff

Clinton's announcement at the Grand Canyon was wrapped in political
correctness. "Mining jobs are good jobs, and mining is important to our
national security - but we can't have mines everywhere, and we shouldn't
have mines that threaten national treasures," he told his sycophantic
audience.

But coal is not only important for our nation's security. More importantly,
at the present time it is the most cost-effective fuel for the electric
plants that supply our homes and industries with light, heat and power.

Moreover, the coal at Kaiporowitz Plateau is a kind of coal that is not
found "everywhere." It is very low sulfur, low ash - hence, low polluting -
coal, the kind in high demand for power plants
, such as one being designed
for Ensenada, Mexico. That megawatt giant, presently on the drawing boards, will supply electricity across northern Baja, an area plagued by brownouts.

Had it not been taken off the world market, the logical source of coal for
the Baja plant would be the Kaiparowitz Plateau. Once mined it could be
transported by rail to the ports of Long Beach or Los Angeles, then by barge to Ensenada. Thanks to Clinton, there will be no exporting of Kaiparowitz coal, which means the facility's procurement people will have to look elsewhere for clean non-polluting fuel.

Only two other sources

Besides the Kaiparowitz Plateau, there are only two other known locations in the world where comparable coal is found in sufficient quantities to make
mining it worthwhile. Colombia in South America is one, but it'll be years
before the necessary mining and shipping infrastructure is built.

The other? You got it. Indonesia.

That's right - the coal fields of South Kalimantan (Borneo), Indonesia. Big
plans are online for its development. Indonesia has been a source of coal
for over a century, but the coal varies sharply in terms of quality.
Recently, however, a coal that is very low in sulfur has been discovered. A
number of coal companies are already there, and it's a good bet Lippo Group money is involved. A major company is Adaro Indonesia, of which 20 percent is owned by the Spanish government, 50 percent by New Hope Corp., an Australian firm.

Envirocoal

According to the 1994 report Mineral Industry of Indonesia, by the bureau of Mines, U.S. Dept. of Interior, Adaro aims to produce 15 million tones by the year 2000 of what they call Envirocoal - a reference to its quality. Adaro has for several years anticipated the U.S. as a major market, and has one committed purchaser already: Tampa Electric Co., which signed a long-term contract to purchase 400,000 tones a year from the Indonesian firm.

To handle the shipping of the increased production, new shipping terminals
are being constructed. One huge one is on a neighboring island at a cost of
$1 billion. The P.T. Indonesia bulk Terminal, as the megaport is called, is
owned 50 percent by New How, and 50 percent by "Indonesian interests" (the Lippo Group perhaps), according to the Interior Dept. report.

Massive coal deposits, massive shipping facilities - that spells massive
investment, massive contracts. This isn't some small-0is-beautiful
eco-operation. We're talking real money here, and it's hard to imagine that
the "Lippopotamus" is not in on the action. But even if Lippo's not directly
involved, the Indonesian government, with which Lippo has a cozy
relationship, certainly does. So too will the various foreign investors and
mining companies to whom the Indonesian government has extended an open invitation.

Winners and Losers

In any game there are winners and losers, and there are Americans in the
first category - the investors who put their money in overseas coal mining,
producers of natural gas, which the administration supports wholeheartedly.

Plus, there's a deal between a Little Rock firm and Lippo. According to the
ENERGY ECONOMIST for Sept., 1994, Entergy Group of Little Rock, in
partnership with the Lippo Group of Hong Kong, signed a memorandum of
understanding with the North China Power Corporation for the cooperative
management and expansion of the $1 billion 1,200 megawatt coal-fired Daton 2 power plan in Shanxi Province. Isn't that interesting And where do you think the coal will come from?

The Democrats' question: What has Clinton done for Indonesia that harms the United States? The answer is - with a stroke of his pen he wiped out the
only significant competition to Indonesian coal interests in the world
market before it even got started, a move that at the same time relegates
this country to importer status. His edict will force us into eventual
dependency on foreign producers of coal as we are presently dependent on
overseas sources for oil - an unconscionable situation considering that we
have abundant deposits of both commodities.

The President has given our children a legacy of continued energy
dependence, marked by contrived shortages and crises, the full impact of
which will be sharply felt in the years to come.

And the leftists and their agenda march on.
 

Lonecowboy

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2006
Messages
1,990
Reaction score
0
Location
eastern Montana
tex wrote:
Lonecowboy, you have tried to make big and broad generalizations as if they were the only possibilities. They are not the answers to the right questions and the questions are rigged that way.


but when tex does it:
They are all there to invite you into the discussion



hmmmmm- kind of hypocritical there tex.

actually I had you in mind when I asked those questions tex, I was just pointing out the hypocracy of the left saying they are pro jobs/economy and looking at what they do and who and what ideas they embrace.
the left embraces economy destroying ideas,that was the point tex, I just wanted you to see it!
 

Tex

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 13, 2007
Messages
2,156
Reaction score
0
Location
Texas
Lonecowboy said:
tex wrote:
Lonecowboy, you have tried to make big and broad generalizations as if they were the only possibilities. They are not the answers to the right questions and the questions are rigged that way.


but when tex does it:
They are all there to invite you into the discussion



hmmmmm- kind of hypocritical there tex.

actually I had you in mind when I asked those questions tex, I was just pointing out the hypocracy of the left saying they are pro jobs/economy and looking at what they do and who and what ideas they embrace.
the left embraces economy destroying ideas,that was the point tex, I just wanted you to see it!

It is totally obvious that the left was deeply engaged in the problems that created the financial crisis. So was the right.

Neither the left nor the right have really fixed the structural problems because their corporate masters who fund their elections don't want that.

I posted an article that showed something like 92 Senators going with Phil Gramm's "reform" of the financial laws that allowed Wall Street to use the banking system's money to skim off profits while they leveraged the housing industry. That was bi partisan support.

Mike's Senator Shelby (R) was a notable exception to that vote.

The structural problems created have not been fixed, they have just been band aided. Wall Street and Commercial banks have not been completely separated as they were with the Glass Steagal Act.

We learned all these lessons the hard way only this time around the big money was able to buy off the politicians once again and there is little accountability to those who gamed the system. The lawyers for these companies yelled "no ex post facto" laws so they wouldn't be prosecuted.

I think you are mixing parties up with corruption. It seems both parties are and have been prone to super poor policies and corporations and the rich can buy either party they want to whore out political power for the self interests of the politicians and the benefit of corporations with the biggest wallet.

Corruption has been bi partisan and seemingly still is even though it wrecked the economy.

I am not stuck on this party good that party bad. A majority in Congress are responsible and they are from both parties.

Tex
 

Latest posts

Top