« Remember that cash stash... | Main | About that "Arab Spring"... »

September 11, 2012



Apparently the attitude is "who cares about the next 200-500 years of the country"? We can barely think above about 2-3 years ahead. What would be wrong with keeping most of the coal and the gas (producers of which are also hard at work trying to ship THAT to China, too) for ourselves, guaranteeing a decent financial future for our country even as others toss away their energy resources? And if we do want to use coal and gas to "restore" our trade balance with China, we should wait until its value is higher than it currently is, and until the Chinese are more desperate for it. We've already tossed away our vast and (formerly) magnificent forests at low value to Japan and China, much of it decades ago. We send most of our scrap metals to them, too. Those countries are or have been treating us as no more than a third-world pillage-post. Why are we not only standing for this, but ENCOURAGING it? Nothing whatsoever to do with Marxism or socialism or a war on capitalism. It's true, capitalism is international, but we DO live in a country, a fine one, so why are we selling it off piecemeal to our rivals?


Usually, I'd agree with "keep our strategic resources at home", but the importance of restoring the balance of trade with China makes sending coal their way a better deal for us than hoarding it. Also, why would we hoard it when we have 10 times coal's thermal equivalent in cleaner-burning Natural Gas? The objections of the Enviro-Marxists are not aimed at "saving the planet", they are aimed at damaging our economy. That much is obvious to me, and has been ever since they rejected the use of nuke power, which is totally carbon-neutral. What they are objecting to is our super-power status. It would suit them to have the US of A lose that status, and revert to say, the status of Argentina.

The War on Coal is a war on Capitalism, make no mistake about it, and it is the usual suspect, Marxism, making war on capitalism.


What was the point of the recent coal-industry ads informing us vigorously that we have enough coal for 200 years? Aside from the word "coal", isn't the operative word here "we"? This is a strategic issue. Why are we rushing to send it to China (and perhaps India)? Given the Great Maw of China, those 200 years will shrivel and shrink rapidly, as did their own substantial coal seams. That is THIS leftie's (not a socialist) primary objection to shipping coal overseas. I've been around railroad coal shipments much of my life, and though I don't love it, I don't make a big issue of it, either. But we should be keeping this stuff for our own use in the future. The only reason for shipping it overseas is for coal companies to make money FASTER, instead of hoarding it here and watching the price inevitably climb, more slowly.

The comments to this entry are closed.


Blog powered by Typepad