Is there a meaningful difference between Obama's bailing out the auto industry and Trump's bailing out the coal industry?
We need cars.
Trump did not bail out coal
Not equivalent to auto bailout.
He has removed regulations and developed trade deals
Yeah cars aren't out dated yet.
Yeah the coal industry is DOA!!
The difference is that Trump urged companies to keep jobs in the US but left the companies alone to face the market. No laws were broken, no one was cheated, and jobs were preserved.
Obama took the opportunity to break the law by denying the majority of investors fair/any récompense for their investments and forcing the car companies to surrender massive shares to the unions (no union money necessary), undermining the value of those who used their own money to buy their own shares.
In both instances, political debts were paid.
Cars weren't being forced out of demand.
Obama chose winners and losers. Trump is not
He just chooses losers, huh.
If it's so outdated, I'd like to know what all the coal miners are mining it for! I have a great nephew that had been laid off for months and months and even had to go out of state to get a temporary job.
Only 2 weeks after DJT took office, he was back in the mines, in the state of AL, making good money, doing what he loves to do!
Buggy whips took a long time to disappear also, but eventually they were replaced by automobiles. KODAK kept making film when the world was moving to digital. KODAK said digital would never replace film. Coal is on the way out. It may take a while, but it is being replaced.
Be replaced by what, solar power, wind power? Solar and wind cannot give us the energy we need, unless we go back to using horse and buggy for transportation. Not until hot or cold fusion becomes available coal will be with us for a very long time.
Yes, but it is being replaced more and more every year. So there will be less and less jobs for coal minors every year. There certainly won't be a growth in coal requirements. Technology change is speeding up every year. Cars are made by two men watching a computer, where it used to take hundreds of men on a line. Nuclear power is growing. No one expected digital photography to replace film so quickly. I remember Kodak saying digital will never be better than film. So, coal, while maybe never replaced totally, it's role will be dramatically reduced over the next years.
If you told me there would be, all electric cars replacing fuel engines. Self driving cars in my lifetime, computers the size of my hand replacing 1401's and 360's that were not nearly as powerful as today's phones and only worked in large, air conditioned rooms. The world is changing FAST!
Not what's powering it, what's changing is the things powered by fossil fuel.
Yes cars are made by two men watching a computer... When they got the streets, who watches the gas station, who delivers the gas to the gas station, what about ask the things that go into this things, parts repair. What about tires, engine, dents, the list is endless. Two men watching a computer can't handle the ask the things that are needed once that manufactured car hits the road. And what about the roads, what about its ancillary systems. Two men don't watch a monitor for that.
Yes, but the Tesla auto's don't need gas, don't need oil changes. In all industries, and I assume even coal, Automation keeps eliminating jobs but adds jobs for a totally different skill set.
My assumption which differs from yours only in timeframe. I think coal usage and jobs will be reduced faster than you do.
So they hover over the roadways so no damage occurs, no tires, no shocks, no dings or dents or s car wash or a new windshield, I can go on. But pray tell me again, how do you power up a Tesla car? And doesn't that industry hire and have ancillary needs? Oh yeah, how far can you go on a Tesla car before you need to power up? You've narrowed your view to two guys watching a motor as cars are being built. What about the parts that go into those cars. I'm not picking a fight with you, I'm trying to show you there's a wider view beyond your two guys watching a car being assembled.
I'd like to know what automotive company makes a car using only 2 employees? I live in AL, the Detroit of the South, have a family member that works in an auto manufacturing plant, and have been on tours of auto manufacturing plants, and have watched many videos of auto assembly plants in AL, and I can tell you that I've never seen one that only hires two employees to make one automobile.
It takes 1-2 people just to run each press that stamps out panels for the cars, much less the thousands that actually assemble the parts, (GA--General Assembly) once they're made! There is one department that is just for painting the cars, etc. What kind of car only takes two people to make from start to finish? I'm not sure I'd want to ride in that car!
The largest use of coal is in electricity generation. It's not being replaced by renewables at a very fast rate. It is however being replaced at an incredibly fast rate by natural gas. It's dropped by about 30% since 2014, most of which has gone to NG. The reason is easy to understand. Advances in tech has made NG easier to reach. It's cleaner, needs much less post-mining processing to be usable, is abundantly plentiful, and safer to access, and requires much less manpower to both mine and refine. Coal production will be less a source of energy production than renewables (~15%) in less than a decade. This isn't the buggy whip being replaced, it's the carbureted engine vs fuel injection. There's still carbs out there, but there's fewer and fewer every year.
4JC - your nephew is most likely mining for Metallurgical coal used in steel making. There was an uptick in global demand starting in around 2014/2015 bc of issues in production in Australia, and a slight increase in steel production in China. It's a super small part of overall coal production globally (~10%), and hasn't really changed much in decades. If Australia wasn't having issues, they easily would have met Chinese demands, and your nephew's mine wouldn't have opened. Oh, and once Australia fixes their issues, it will almost definitely close again. Welcome to the global economy.
Thanks, Shazam! I didn't know about the differences. I looked up the mine he works and found this, from 2015:
"The Birmingham-headquartered metallurgical coal producer has eliminated hundreds of jobs already this year as low prices have left the American coal industry reeling. Metallurgical coal is coal used to make steel, which is different than thermal coal, which is used for energy."
So my question to you would be this--since DJT has insisted on US Steel for infrastructure projects, and the U.S. Steel plant in the B'ham area has also picked up new employees since DJT got elected, wouldn't that bode well for these coal miners? Thanks!
Part 2. Here's an interesting article about TCI, in Fairfield, which is a suburb of B'ham, if you're interested in steel making.
The last relic of the Tennessee Coal, Iron and Railroad Company, the Fairfield Works, continues to be operated by U.S. Steel to this day (May 2011) as one of its five integrated steel mills in the United States.
Check this graph out. It shows that while you are right, coal is used mostly for electrical production, it's use is dropping quickly every year, being replaced by Nuclear, oil,natural gas,hydroelectricity, wind, geothermal and solar. Coal now produces about 37% of all the electricity and dropping every year.
That will change, coal is the cheapest of the fuels for power plants. It's use was dropped through legislation, specially at the misrepresentation by the Demoncrats and the media of how polluting it is. We have the cleanest burning coal in the world, add scrubbers to a plant using coal and it drops to literally nothing.
4JC - great info! Thanks! As far as DJT's EOs go......it was a suggestion, not a requirement. It would require a new law granting the exec branch the authority to control where the raw materials come from that contractors use. It may happen, but he cannot simply demand it without alteration. Right now, we have a law that requires preferential treatment of US firms for gov contract fulfillment unless the cost is 20% more than what can be gained internationally. It doesn't however, specifically call out where the materials those contractors use originate. Is it a good idea? I'm both fiscally and socially Progressive, so I'd argue yes as I support initiatives that use taxpayer money to support citizens. A fiscal conservative should rightly push against this. Requiring more expensive raw materials can only lead to more expensive contracts, and more taxpayer $ going to contracts, and more debt.
JUST - thanks! I couldn't remember where I had read this, and the source provided the exact link I was looking for! I'll paste it below. Oh, and that piechart is from 2014 look at the line graph below. NG surpassed coal in 2016.
AR - you're incorrect. NG is cheaper and burns much cleaner - by about 65% if memory serves. It's also MUCH easier to access. We have massive NG deposits in NE OH. Folks there call the gas company asking if they would like to place a small well on their land. Why? They're super small (here is a photo goo.gl/S5WzAR), and those who own the land get at a minimum free utilities. If they have mineral rights, they get paid a percentage as well. Coal requires land purchase, destruction, dozens-hundreds of miners, and takes a ton of folks to get it out of the ground. That's why coal mining supported the entire infrastructure of towns like Scranton, PA.
JUST - forgot the link: www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=427&t=3
Thanks, Shazam! I've never really understood economics, or what the difference between fiscally conservative and liberal meant. You should win an award for boiling it down to simple terms that I can understand! Lol I'm copying/pasting your explanation into my notes so I can look back at it later, when I get confused again! Lol
I believe that people that can do that are rare. My hubby is that way about teaching the Bible. He says one of the highest compliments he's ever received was a parishioner that told him he always made it simple enough for her to understand.
Having said that, let me rephrase what you've said, as I now understand it, to make sure that I AM understanding what you've said! Lol
You're saying that a fiscally progressive or liberal person would be in favor of U.S. contracts that required US materials used because this would put more US workers to work. However, this would raise the cost of these contracts, costing taxpayers more money to help support those US workers, which fiscally conservative voters would be against. Is that correct?
If yes, would that mean that those in the manufacturing field (blue collar workers) would automatically have to be fiscally progressive/liberal or they're voting against their best interests? And that white collar workers would have to be fiscally conservative since they have more tax dollars going into the system, if they have higher paying jobs?
4JC - broadly speaking on this particular issue, yes. With this particular issue, the increased use of met coal would concern most (but not all) Progressives bc of the climate change impact on using fossil fuels. Most though would have supported it regardless as our EPA has great guidelines geared at reducing pollution. Trump's call for their abolishment, his appointment for heading the org, and his apparent steadfast commitment to turning back environment protection to the days of Jimmy Carter would make many hesitant though. How sad is that? Folks actually wanting jobs to go to Australia bc their global responsibility level is higher than ours!
The auto industry wasn't bankrupted by the government. The coal industry was.
Natural gas and low oil prices not to mention being the most environmentally destructive form of energy are killing the coal industry. No such thing as clean coal, you're being lied to.
the government did not bankrupt the coal industry - natural market forces and alt fuels did
Actually the coal industry was shut down by "O"bama administration, bankruptcy ensued.
natural gas prices fell to record lows and is available in abundance. that had far more to do with the coal industry retraction than Obama.
So gas powers electrical power plants? And since when do cars run on coal. If "O"bama and any Democrat shot someone point blank in the head, you would say it was an accident.
I'm a republican - but I'm not blindly going to blame Obama either. there is more than enough to fault him for.
in 2016 natural gas surpassed coal for use in power generation
Plants have been converted to natural gas.
They'll convert them back because coal is cheaper. If you can lower your overhead, you do it. They were forced to go with gas.
Coal mines are dangerous to workers and strip mining is an environmental catastrophe. I know its tough if you have family who dig coal but retraining is and should be more available.
The cost on human lives must be factored in. Plants are converting because gas is plentiful due to fracking. Not the best alternative but the lesser of two evils. Combined with wind and solar it will save lives and keep costs down.
Your describing that industry from the 1920's.... Vastly improved. I don't know of you like to eat crab legs, if you do I suggest you stop, catching crab that the legs are eaten is more dangerous that coal mining. All the horrible things you hear about coal mining accidents is in China, India, South America. By using American coal and not Chinese, Indian or South American, you are saving lives.
so, you hadn't heard of natural gas power plants earlier in the thread, hadn't understood the conversion that took place and that NG had surpassed coal for energy production, or understood the market forces that caused yeh shift - but now you think there will be enough cap ex investment to convert back to coal? do you have any idea how much NG the US has? we are the Saudi Arabia of NG. you understand that no one makes long term cap ex investment based on a spot price of commodities? but rather the long term price trend and viability? no one is making that investment to convert back. your premise that government regulations killed coal was complexly flawed, and you lack an understanding of the space.
There's not many viable alternatives to cars
Almost laughable to compare the two.
Unlike the coal industry, the auto industry had a potential market, and a conceivable path to recovery. Investing in coal (a hundred years late) is the kind of thing only the one guy who could go bankrupt running a casino would jump on.
We use automobiles. While there other modes of transportation, most people who use cars are going to continue to do so. He didn't back a dying technology.
On the other hand, coal is useless. It's expensive and there are better choices. Natural gas, wind, and so forth are cheaper and are where the energy industry is headed.
Backing coal is like backing the horse and buggy instead of cars. It's an outdated technology.
Yes - the auto industry is useful.