As history fans everywhere know, the owners of coal mines have not always been the best friends of the miners who work for them. This is why so many miners ended up dead when they tried to do things like form unions.
For this reason it was somewhat jarring to read in a Washington Post article reporting on the Trump administration’s decision to end funding for a study on the health effects of mountaintop mining:
“But Trump has declared himself a friend of coal miners and coal mining companies. In March, he issued an executive order that lifted a ban on leases for coal excavation on federal land, making good on a vow to revive the struggling industry and create thousands of jobs.”
Canceling the study is clearly a friendly gesture towards the coal mining companies. They do mountaintop mining, in which they blow the top off a mountain and throw the debris in the streams below, because it is cheaper than underground mining. The study may have been used in court cases by people who suffered from cancer or other diseases in part due to the effects of this dumping. It may also have led to fewer permits being issued in the future.
By contrast, coal miners are likely to be hurt by this outcome. This is in part due to the fact that many miners and their families face greater health risks from living in the vicinity of mountaintop mines.
However, it is also likely the case that more mountaintop mining will mean fewer jobs for miners. While lower cost production can have some impact on the demand for coal, the bigger impact in terms of employment for miners is likely to be the replacement of underground mining jobs with mountaintop mining. Since it takes many fewer workers to blow the top off a mountain than to dig the coal out by hand in an underground mine, actions to promote mountaintop mining are likely to destroy jobs in the coal industry, even if they increase the profits of the coal companies.
As history fans everywhere know, the owners of coal mines have not always been the best friends of the miners who work for them. This is why so many miners ended up dead when they tried to do things like form unions.
For this reason it was somewhat jarring to read in a Washington Post article reporting on the Trump administration’s decision to end funding for a study on the health effects of mountaintop mining:
“But Trump has declared himself a friend of coal miners and coal mining companies. In March, he issued an executive order that lifted a ban on leases for coal excavation on federal land, making good on a vow to revive the struggling industry and create thousands of jobs.”
Canceling the study is clearly a friendly gesture towards the coal mining companies. They do mountaintop mining, in which they blow the top off a mountain and throw the debris in the streams below, because it is cheaper than underground mining. The study may have been used in court cases by people who suffered from cancer or other diseases in part due to the effects of this dumping. It may also have led to fewer permits being issued in the future.
By contrast, coal miners are likely to be hurt by this outcome. This is in part due to the fact that many miners and their families face greater health risks from living in the vicinity of mountaintop mines.
However, it is also likely the case that more mountaintop mining will mean fewer jobs for miners. While lower cost production can have some impact on the demand for coal, the bigger impact in terms of employment for miners is likely to be the replacement of underground mining jobs with mountaintop mining. Since it takes many fewer workers to blow the top off a mountain than to dig the coal out by hand in an underground mine, actions to promote mountaintop mining are likely to destroy jobs in the coal industry, even if they increase the profits of the coal companies.
Read More Leer más Join the discussion Participa en la discusión
Read More Leer más Join the discussion Participa en la discusión
Read More Leer más Join the discussion Participa en la discusión
Read More Leer más Join the discussion Participa en la discusión
In an article on the effort to renegotiate the terms of NAFTA, the NYT noted the Trump administration’s plan to put in language that would prohibit currency management. (The article uses the term “manipulation,” which implies an action being done in secret. In fact, large-scale efforts to affect the value of a country’s currency will almost always be open, since they are almost impossible to conceal.) The piece then notes that since both Canada and Mexico have freely floated their currencies for decades, this is a “symbolic gesture.”
This is not true. Many people in trade debates have claimed that it is impossible to have currency rules in a trade agreement. They have argued that it is impossible to identify steps to manage currency and distinguish them from the normal conduct of monetary policy. Having solid language on currency management in a revised NAFTA would show that it is possible. Also, since the original NAFTA served as a model for many future trade deals, a currency provision in a revised NAFTA could be the basis for similar provisions in other trade deals.
In an article on the effort to renegotiate the terms of NAFTA, the NYT noted the Trump administration’s plan to put in language that would prohibit currency management. (The article uses the term “manipulation,” which implies an action being done in secret. In fact, large-scale efforts to affect the value of a country’s currency will almost always be open, since they are almost impossible to conceal.) The piece then notes that since both Canada and Mexico have freely floated their currencies for decades, this is a “symbolic gesture.”
This is not true. Many people in trade debates have claimed that it is impossible to have currency rules in a trade agreement. They have argued that it is impossible to identify steps to manage currency and distinguish them from the normal conduct of monetary policy. Having solid language on currency management in a revised NAFTA would show that it is possible. Also, since the original NAFTA served as a model for many future trade deals, a currency provision in a revised NAFTA could be the basis for similar provisions in other trade deals.
Read More Leer más Join the discussion Participa en la discusión
Read More Leer más Join the discussion Participa en la discusión
The NYT had a piece discussing Sinclair Broadcasting’s plans for expansion and the apparent green light coming from the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). As the piece explains, the FCC is now headed by Ajit V. Pai. Mr. Pai apparently met with David D. Smith, the chairman of Sinclair, just before he became chair. Shortly thereafter, the FCC weakened a rule that may have slowed Sinclair’s plans for expansion.
At one point the piece describes Mr. Pai as “an enthusiastic purveyor of free-market philosophy.”
This is not at all clear from the description of his views in the piece. In a true free market, the government would not be allocating air waves. The assignment of frequencies to specific companies by the government, with the threat of arrest for interfering, is not a free market. This is government intervention.
It is possible to argue that this government intervention is necessary to make the airwaves usable (if dozens of people tried to broadcast on the same frequency, no one would be able to hear or see anything), but people who support the assignment of frequencies are not in favor of a free market. Even if we accept the need to assign frequencies, there are an infinite number of ways this can be done.
A frequency can be parceled out by the hour, with individuals or companies only getting claims to short periods. To broadcast a longer show or movie it would then be necessary to buy up enough slots from others to allow for the necessary time. The slots can also be auctioned off rather than given away for free to private companies. This way, the government, rather than private companies, would benefit from the monopolization of the airwaves.
It is understandable that owners of television and radio stations would like to pretend that they support the free market when they want the government to just turn over exclusive use of frequencies, with no questions asked, but this is not true.
Note: Thanks to Keane Bhatt for calling this to my attention.
The NYT had a piece discussing Sinclair Broadcasting’s plans for expansion and the apparent green light coming from the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). As the piece explains, the FCC is now headed by Ajit V. Pai. Mr. Pai apparently met with David D. Smith, the chairman of Sinclair, just before he became chair. Shortly thereafter, the FCC weakened a rule that may have slowed Sinclair’s plans for expansion.
At one point the piece describes Mr. Pai as “an enthusiastic purveyor of free-market philosophy.”
This is not at all clear from the description of his views in the piece. In a true free market, the government would not be allocating air waves. The assignment of frequencies to specific companies by the government, with the threat of arrest for interfering, is not a free market. This is government intervention.
It is possible to argue that this government intervention is necessary to make the airwaves usable (if dozens of people tried to broadcast on the same frequency, no one would be able to hear or see anything), but people who support the assignment of frequencies are not in favor of a free market. Even if we accept the need to assign frequencies, there are an infinite number of ways this can be done.
A frequency can be parceled out by the hour, with individuals or companies only getting claims to short periods. To broadcast a longer show or movie it would then be necessary to buy up enough slots from others to allow for the necessary time. The slots can also be auctioned off rather than given away for free to private companies. This way, the government, rather than private companies, would benefit from the monopolization of the airwaves.
It is understandable that owners of television and radio stations would like to pretend that they support the free market when they want the government to just turn over exclusive use of frequencies, with no questions asked, but this is not true.
Note: Thanks to Keane Bhatt for calling this to my attention.
Read More Leer más Join the discussion Participa en la discusión
Read More Leer más Join the discussion Participa en la discusión
When you’re rich and powerful in the United States you get to lie freely to advance your position in public debate, including the opinion page of The New York Times. This is why the paper ran an anti-free trade diatribe against China, insisting that the country respect patent and copyright protections claimed by U.S. companies.
The column, by two former U.S. intelligence officials, asserted:
“Chinese companies, with the encouragement of official Chinese policy and often the active participation of government personnel, have been pillaging the intellectual property of American companies. All together, intellectual-property theft costs America up to $600 billion a year, the greatest transfer of wealth in history. China accounts for most of that loss.”
Hmmm, $600 billion a year? That’s more than 3 percent of U.S. GDP, it’s more than 25 percent of all U.S. exports, it’s roughly 30 times what we spend each year on TANF. Does that make sense?
The column doesn’t give the source for this number, but when the industry groups have come up with these sorts of figures in the past, it is usually by assigning the retail value of their product in the United States to every unauthorized copy everywhere in the world. Let’s say that there are 100 million unauthorized versions of Microsoft Windows in China. (I have no idea if this is a reasonable number.) If the retail price of Windows is $50 a copy, then the industry group writes down $5 billion as the theft, even if most of these people would switch to a decent operating system even if they were just charged a couple of dollars for Windows.
We get the same story for prescription drugs. A generic version of a drug like the Hepatitis C drug Sovaldi may sell for a few hundred dollars in the developing world. Gilead Sciences has a retail price of $84,000. If there are a million treatments in India and elsewhere, this comes to $84 billion in “theft.” We, of course, have to skip the fact that Gilead Sciences doesn’t have clear patent rights to this drug in much of the world. If they say so, it is good enough for the debate and The New York Times.
Anyhow, it is striking that this sort of nonsense is supposed to be treated respectfully by serious people. We expect President Trump and other political figures to go to bat with China and other countries to enforce the claims of Microsoft, Pfizer, and other companies whining about their intellectual “property,” but when it comes to adjusting currency values to address the trade deficit — well, then we are all really wimpy and can’t do anything. After all, that is just about the income of manufacturing workers (you know uneducated people), not the money of people who really matter.
So, there you have it. The folks who matter have a right to expect the president to massively interfere in the internal affairs of China and other countries to make them richer. But, ordinary workers? Well, let’s twiddle our thumbs and pretend to give a damn.
When you’re rich and powerful in the United States you get to lie freely to advance your position in public debate, including the opinion page of The New York Times. This is why the paper ran an anti-free trade diatribe against China, insisting that the country respect patent and copyright protections claimed by U.S. companies.
The column, by two former U.S. intelligence officials, asserted:
“Chinese companies, with the encouragement of official Chinese policy and often the active participation of government personnel, have been pillaging the intellectual property of American companies. All together, intellectual-property theft costs America up to $600 billion a year, the greatest transfer of wealth in history. China accounts for most of that loss.”
Hmmm, $600 billion a year? That’s more than 3 percent of U.S. GDP, it’s more than 25 percent of all U.S. exports, it’s roughly 30 times what we spend each year on TANF. Does that make sense?
The column doesn’t give the source for this number, but when the industry groups have come up with these sorts of figures in the past, it is usually by assigning the retail value of their product in the United States to every unauthorized copy everywhere in the world. Let’s say that there are 100 million unauthorized versions of Microsoft Windows in China. (I have no idea if this is a reasonable number.) If the retail price of Windows is $50 a copy, then the industry group writes down $5 billion as the theft, even if most of these people would switch to a decent operating system even if they were just charged a couple of dollars for Windows.
We get the same story for prescription drugs. A generic version of a drug like the Hepatitis C drug Sovaldi may sell for a few hundred dollars in the developing world. Gilead Sciences has a retail price of $84,000. If there are a million treatments in India and elsewhere, this comes to $84 billion in “theft.” We, of course, have to skip the fact that Gilead Sciences doesn’t have clear patent rights to this drug in much of the world. If they say so, it is good enough for the debate and The New York Times.
Anyhow, it is striking that this sort of nonsense is supposed to be treated respectfully by serious people. We expect President Trump and other political figures to go to bat with China and other countries to enforce the claims of Microsoft, Pfizer, and other companies whining about their intellectual “property,” but when it comes to adjusting currency values to address the trade deficit — well, then we are all really wimpy and can’t do anything. After all, that is just about the income of manufacturing workers (you know uneducated people), not the money of people who really matter.
So, there you have it. The folks who matter have a right to expect the president to massively interfere in the internal affairs of China and other countries to make them richer. But, ordinary workers? Well, let’s twiddle our thumbs and pretend to give a damn.
Read More Leer más Join the discussion Participa en la discusión
Read More Leer más Join the discussion Participa en la discusión
