U.S. Politics 2016 Seasonal Hiring Edition: "You're fired"

[Squab]

12 minutes ago, WinterFox said:

I am growing to think that we of the left need to get our acts together and remind ourselves how to debate against these things. Of course it seems obvious that coal is obsolete, but there are a lot of voters who cannot grasp that and simply telling them 'coal is bad' isn't cutting it.

There was a time when progressives had to debate, actually debate, the fact that 'niggers' are human beings and deserve basic human rights. It was a serious topic and had to be treated as such, not dismissed out of hand. There was a time not that long ago that progressives had to lay out that homosexuals were not sent by the devil to rape christian children point by point, and treat those fears as if they were not simple nonsense.

Ridiculous as it is with the wealth of knowledge available via the internet, progressives need to educate ourselves on these topics we think of as settled to try and help those who refuse to help themselves. I don't know if you've ever debated a racist, actually debated and not simply gotten into a shouting match, but it's fucking hard! They have all of these fake facts and made up figures, and with fake news it's even worse.

I don't know, I'm only a 23 year old weirdo. But I think the only recourse against the new Republican madness is to actually deconstruct each bullshit argument they propose as if it actually has merits.

If they say coal will save the day, point out exactly why they're full of it. If they make racist statements, don't just point out the racism, explain why they're racist and the statements are wrong.

If they say they won the popular vote, cite all of the evidence to the contrary.

When they bitch about big government, explain how they're benefiting and what the Republicans are doing that will make their lives worse.

Etc. Etc. Etc. On and on and on and on and on and on until the effects of fake news have been marginalized.

 

ok, lets start on coal. I thought it was quite well known Clinton wanted to close coal mines.

Predictions are that worldwide coal as a percentage of power generation will drop but in terms of tonnage of coal, it is quite different. Coal as a power source is long term most likely dead but if consumption of coal is still growing and slated to grow (albeit slower than anything else), then how dead is it?

But steaming coal is not the future and investment in coal mines worldwide is not usually in burning coal so people can power their iproducts. its in steel. What is the substitute for abundant cheap coke? Or do you have a substitute for steel? This year the US has exported more coking coal than steaming or thermal coal and most of it to Canada.  And coking coal exports to Asia have actually risen since last year. That is only looking at what has happened up to the end of June.  Seaborne hard coking coal price has just been benchmarked for Q1 2017 at $285/t compared to ~$86/t in Q2 2016. This will actually be a drop from Q4 2016 and I admit the price is a little artificial as it is supply issues rather than demand but all the big players are predicting a drop to between 125 and 175 for Q2 and anything above 100 means almost everyone is in business.  Demand is continuing to grow slowly so the outlook (while coke and steel are required) is for growth.

What insight can you provide on the coal markets worldwide that might change that analysis?

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

7 minutes ago, Squab said:

ok, lets start on coal. I thought it was quite well known Clinton wanted to close coal mines.

Predictions are that worldwide coal as a percentage of power generation will drop but in terms of tonnage of coal, it is quite different. Coal as a power source is long term most likely dead but if consumption of coal is still growing and slated to grow (albeit slower than anything else), then how dead is it?

But steaming coal is not the future and investment in coal mines worldwide is not usually in burning coal so people can power their iproducts. its in steel. What is the substitute for abundant cheap coke? Or do you have a substitute for steel? This year the US has exported more coking coal than steaming or thermal coal and most of it to Canada.  And coking coal exports to Asia have actually risen since last year. That is only looking at what has happened up to the end of June.  Seaborne hard coking coal price has just been benchmarked for Q1 2017 at $285/t compared to ~$86/t in Q2 2016. This will actually be a drop from Q4 2016 and I admit the price is a little artificial as it is supply issues rather than demand but all the big players are predicting a drop to between 125 and 175 for Q2 and anything above 100 means almost everyone is in business.  Demand is continuing to grow slowly so the outlook (while coke and steel are required) is for growth.

What insight can you provide on the coal markets worldwide that might change that analysis?

So why hasn't the Invisible Hand corrected the issue? Why does the Coal Industry require Government assistance? 

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

14 minutes ago, Zorral said:

That still makes no sense, that Hillary and the Dems did not inform the most concerned electorate about this topic that they are busy working to make their lives even more difficult, right where it hurts most, in jobs, pensions and health care. That they are doing exactly the opposite.  Don't need to address what the thugs are saying, only what they are actually doing.

But it still makes no sense that the very people who have been the most exploited and damaged by the coal corps hated Hillary even more than they hated the corps.  Somebody did something very brilliant here to pull that off, and alas, one feels that Hillary herself and the whole DNC helped -- a whole lot.

 I don't know, I'm not sure that requires brilliance on anyone's part, just ignorance on the electorate's part. It's like that story that was posted in the last thread about the Kentucky Trump voter whose husband is on a waiting list for a new liver. If the coal miners can't figure out that the ACA was a net positive for them, how much effort does it take to exploit them?

[Squab]

Just now, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

So why hasn't the Invisible Hand corrected the issue? Why does the Coal Industry require Government assistance? 

Because, as explained in the post you quoted, the "Coal Industry" is not homogenous.  Coking coal and steaming coal are not the same. Also, there is so much government intervention in industries seen as struggling that it probably even pays to have a thermal coal mine to get a handout while operating a coking mine at the same time. Politicians (and seemingly the public) are unlikely to understand the difference between the two and even if they are, who is going to listen to them when if they talk about this they are likely to be shouted down because "coal is obsolete". Even if it is fundamental in steel manufacturing.

[Sivin]

19 minutes ago, Squab said:

ok, lets start on coal. I thought it was quite well known Clinton wanted to close coal mines.

Predictions are that worldwide coal as a percentage of power generation will drop but in terms of tonnage of coal, it is quite different. Coal as a power source is long term most likely dead but if consumption of coal is still growing and slated to grow (albeit slower than anything else), then how dead is it?

But steaming coal is not the future and investment in coal mines worldwide is not usually in burning coal so people can power their iproducts. its in steel. What is the substitute for abundant cheap coke? Or do you have a substitute for steel? This year the US has exported more coking coal than steaming or thermal coal and most of it to Canada.  And coking coal exports to Asia have actually risen since last year. That is only looking at what has happened up to the end of June.  Seaborne hard coking coal price has just been benchmarked for Q1 2017 at $285/t compared to ~$86/t in Q2 2016. This will actually be a drop from Q4 2016 and I admit the price is a little artificial as it is supply issues rather than demand but all the big players are predicting a drop to between 125 and 175 for Q2 and anything above 100 means almost everyone is in business.  Demand is continuing to grow slowly so the outlook (while coke and steel are required) is for growth.

What insight can you provide on the coal markets worldwide that might change that analysis?

 

1 minute ago, Squab said:

Because, as explained in the post you quoted, the "Coal Industry" is not homogenous.  Coking coal and steaming coal are not the same. Also, there is so much government intervention in industries seen as struggling that it probably even pays to have a thermal coal mine to get a handout while operating a coking mine at the same time. Politicians (and seemingly the public) are unlikely to understand the difference between the two and even if they are, who is going to listen to them when if they talk about this they are likely to be shouted down because "coal is obsolete". Even if it is fundamental in steel manufacturing.

Was your intention to embarrass me by demanding I refute the minutia of every aspect of coal mining in response to a post I made accusing liberals (and myself) of not being able to address the minutia of a series of topics including coal mining? Hey, if your sources are correct, congratulations! I literally have not given a second thought to the use of coal in steel, I was speaking purely about coal powered electricity. Because, you see, I hadn't given the subject the in-depth research it deserves.

What did you accomplish here besides getting in a shot on someone who openly admitted to not being properly informed on the subject?

[Squab]

10 minutes ago, WinterFox said:

 

Was your intention to embarrass me by demanding I refute the minutia of every aspect of coal mining in response to a post I made accusing liberals (and myself) of not being able to address the minutia of a series of topics including coal mining? Hey, if your sources are correct, congratulations! I literally have not given a second thought to the use of coal in steel, I was speaking purely about coal powered electricity. Because, you see, I hadn't given the subject the in-depth research it deserves.

What did you accomplish here besides getting in a shot on someone who openly admitted to not being properly informed on the subject?

Do not be embarrassed. The argument I put forward regarding coal markets is likely the Republican thinking. I do not know as I do not move in Republican circles and I'm not saying coal will save the day but its definitely an argument for coal. I was hoping to hear some of the below. I am actually looking to hear other peoples arguments and insights.

1 hour ago, WinterFox said:

I think the only recourse against the new Republican madness is to actually deconstruct each bullshit argument they propose as if it actually has merits.

If they say coal will save the day, point out exactly why they're full of it.

 

[Kalbear]

On 12/17/2016 at 3:13 PM, Mr Fixit said:

As long as you're not white Christian guy. Or white Jewish guy. Or white Shia guy. Or white anything-not-proscribed-religion-guy. Or a white woman. Or a pink woman. Or an indigo lesbian. If you think Pussy Riot had it bad, how about beheading the lot of them and be done with it? 

Yep, that sucks. Doesn't happen very often in SA, but it does happen, and it sucks. It also sucks that as a woman you can be arrested and convicted for being raped. It sucks what you have to do to simply stay there.

And yet, that does not excuse anything about Russia. Saudi Arabia is far more permissive with free speech, as an example. It's more permissive to outsiders. It has a higher overall quality of life, less crime, less outright corruption. And it still sucks horribly, but that doesn't make Russia better.

On 12/17/2016 at 3:13 PM, Mr Fixit said:

I know the power of propaganda can be overwhelming, but in what universe are Russians worse than Saudis? Those guys and their regime are literally prime exporters and chief ideologues of the most explosive and hideous cult on the face of the Earth. Their particular branch of Islam, thanks to the power of petrodollar and Western support, is infecting the whole Middle East like a goddamn bubonic plague.

And none of that has anything to do with human rights violations. None! And that's assuming I take your propaganda at face value, which I'm not going to. The idea that it is 'infecting the whole middle east' is laughably bad. But again, that has nothing to do with human rights violations.

Perhaps it'd be easier to actually state some of the issues. Namely, Russia is extraordinarily against free speech, particularly against free speech against the government. This is not at all the case in Saudi Arabia. SA has incredibly reactionary, restrictive laws, but they are not particularly repressive against most forms of free speech or expression. Russia still kills press based on them speaking out on the government. Still. 

And again, Russia still has more people in prison than any other country in the world per capita save the US. Russia still kills gay people. Russia still bombs civilians and invades foreign nations on flimsy pretext. Russia still is one of the leading exporters of human slaves in the world. 

[Jaxom 1974]

 

 

[Kalbear]

2 hours ago, Squab said:

ok, lets start on coal. I thought it was quite well known Clinton wanted to close coal mines.

Nope. Not at all. She didn't care. 

She wants to make the US energy-independent while hitting requirements on carbon emissions. She didn't care about closing coal mines, but she recognizes that the demand for coal is naturally going to dissipate for energy consumption as other forms of energy become significantly cheaper to operate as well as being cleaner. This amusingly means that she was for things like fracking, which produces significantly less carbon emissions per watt of energy compared to coal. 

2 hours ago, Squab said:

Predictions are that worldwide coal as a percentage of power generation will drop but in terms of tonnage of coal, it is quite different. Coal as a power source is long term most likely dead but if consumption of coal is still growing and slated to grow (albeit slower than anything else), then how dead is it?

It's pretty dead, because the overall demand isn't increasing all that much compared to overall energy consumption and more importantly the requirement for more sources of coal is basically done. In addition to that, coal mining is getting more and more automated, meaning that coal jobs are going away. 

Note that this chart  is also from 2012, when the changes of fracking really weren't understood. This article from the same source indicates some of the changes - and notably, coal is going to be reduced from the 2nd largest energy source to the 3rd by 2030 by their projections.

So no, it's not 'dead'. but it certainly isn't expanding.

2 hours ago, Squab said:

But steaming coal is not the future and investment in coal mines worldwide is not usually in burning coal so people can power their iproducts. its in steel. What is the substitute for abundant cheap coke? Or do you have a substitute for steel? This year the US has exported more coking coal than steaming or thermal coal and most of it to Canada.  And coking coal exports to Asia have actually risen since last year. That is only looking at what has happened up to the end of June.  Seaborne hard coking coal price has just been benchmarked for Q1 2017 at $285/t compared to ~$86/t in Q2 2016. This will actually be a drop from Q4 2016 and I admit the price is a little artificial as it is supply issues rather than demand but all the big players are predicting a drop to between 125 and 175 for Q2 and anything above 100 means almost everyone is in business.  Demand is continuing to grow slowly so the outlook (while coke and steel are required) is for growth.

What insight can you provide on the coal markets worldwide that might change that analysis?

Well, for starters only about 14% of the overall coal being mined is used for making steel, and it isn't the limiting factor in cost or creation of steel. Steel creation is also so incredibly overflooded right now that it is hard to really take any kind of hard position on what steel will look like in the future given how much there is now. That said, it still likely doesn't matter for overall coal jobs. 

[Kalbear]

23 hours ago, ThinkerX said:

Given the glacial pace of such investigations (why am I hearing this 'Benghazi!' echo?) he'll probably have that chance. 

Also, the republican agenda, overall, is going to very badly hurt republican voters - something the leadership appears utterly oblivious too.  With a full sweep (Presidency, Congress, and Supreme Court) ALL of the responsibility falls on them.  So, when things crash hard and the republican leadership lies about how things have improved (or try to blame liberals), the lies will fail big time with a significant number of people they rely upon to remain in power. 

 

It didn't with Bush, it didn't with Bush 2, and it probably won't with Trump, either.

You're assuming that anyone believes that their side could possibly be wrong.

[Dr. Pepper]

This is interesting and may belong somewhere else, but works in the politics thread as well.

Perils of Perception Study.

The US is number 5 out of 40 on the index of ignorance.  

Many countries tend to vastly overestimate the current Muslim population and the future projected growth of the Muslim population.  This is no surprise with our current climate of Muslim hysteria and Islamaphobia.  The US tends to think the least wealthy own more than they actually do.  They included a question about the US election.  50% of Americans thought Hillary would win while only 26% thought Trump.  Unsurprisingly Russians had the highest percentage of people thinking Trump would win.  I'm curious what their coverage on the US election was like in country.

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

7 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

And none of that has anything to do with human rights violations. None! And that's assuming I take your propaganda at face value, which I'm not going to. The idea that it is 'infecting the whole middle east' is laughably bad. But again, that has nothing to do with human rights violations.

Perhaps it'd be easier to actually state some of the issues. Namely, Russia is extraordinarily against free speech, particularly against free speech against the government. This is not at all the case in Saudi Arabia. SA has incredibly reactionary, restrictive laws, but they are not particularly repressive against most forms of free speech or expression. Russia still kills press based on them speaking out on the government. Still. 

And again, Russia still has more people in prison than any other country in the world per capita save the US. Russia still kills gay people. Russia still bombs civilians and invades foreign nations on flimsy pretext. Russia still is one of the leading exporters of human slaves in the world. 

 Exporting their form of Extremist Islam invariably leads to human rights violations. I can't imagine that you can't connect those dots.

 Russia may be more overt in their attacks on Free Speech, but I can't see how you can paint the Saudis as being much better. 

[White Walker Texas Ranger]

On 12/17/2016 at 6:09 PM, Commodore said:

no empirical evidence that the first two affected the election outcome, and the latter isn't going anywhere

 

There's no evidence that bugging the Democratic National Convention affected the election outcome. In fact, just the opposite. McGovern wasn't going to win either way.

[Kalbear]

2 minutes ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

 Exporting their form of Extremist Islam invariably leads to human rights violations. I can't imagine that you can't connect those dots.

 Russia may be more overt in their attacks on Free Speech, but I can't see how you can paint the Saudis as being much better. 

I can connect those dots - but going as vague as 'exporting ideology' is pretty bad of an argument for actually comparing real human rights violations. Especially when said exportation has not 'taken over the Middle East like a cancer'. 

SA is pretty lenient on free speech. They allow open protest against the government, they allow dissidents, they allow speech against government officials and people. Compared to Russia they're absolutely far better; they aren't murdering dissidents or disappearing them, for instance. They are, as I said, extraordinarily reactionary and conservative in their laws, but those laws largely protect free speech rights.

If I had my druthers I'd not be allies with either of them, but SA has at least some pretexts towards Westernized views on things like speech. 

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

  I guess I'm a bit puzzled by your stance on this seeing as how you've always struck me as a staunch defender of Women's Rights. This is a society that by its' very precepts devalues half of its' population based on sex. 

 On top of that, I can't imagine being able to exercise much in the way of Freedom of Speech when those same precepts don't allow you to question the religion, which in turn is the State. 

[Kalbear]

12 minutes ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

  I guess I'm a bit puzzled by your stance on this seeing as how you've always struck me as a staunch defender of Women's Rights. This is a society that by its' very precepts devalues half of its' population based on sex. 

 On top of that, I can't imagine being able to exercise much in the way of Freedom of Speech when those same precepts don't allow you to question the religion, which in turn is the State. 

Saudi Arabia is completely shitty with respect to women. Russia does have it better as a woman, and that's full stop. However, a woman can actually speak against the government in SA and cannot in any remote way in Russia. 

But again, quantity matters too. It matters that Russia has like 5 million people in prison, many of whom are there because they were against the government. It matters that they openly prosecute gay people. It matters that they bomb civilians. 

Perhaps it's this: right now, I am very much concerned about free speech rights being curtailed or enforced heavily in the US, and as a result I am putting more weight on that than I likely would otherwise. That's certainly possible. And even with that said, SA isn't exactly a winner on free speech. They're just less likely to outright assassinate people.

[Squab]

29 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

Nope. Not at all. She didn't care.

Lets go to the tape. Maybe she didn't mean it. That would be unusual for her.

36 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

So no, it's not 'dead'. but it certainly isn't expanding.

The article you quoted shows thermal is still expanding here and more startlingly here.

39 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

Well, for starters only about 14% of the overall coal being mined is used for making steel, and it isn't the limiting factor in cost or creation of steel. Steel creation is also so incredibly overflooded right now that it is hard to really take any kind of hard position on what steel will look like in the future given how much there is now. That said, it still likely doesn't matter for overall coal jobs. 

Heres an article on steel demand from this year rather than almost three years ago. Demand is only half the equation. China has closed over 1000 coal mines this year and plans to close over 4000 more. This has and will continue to affect supply, hence coking coal exports to Asia have increased (as I explained earlier).

[snake]

Interesting article titled What the hell is wrong with America's establishment liberals? on Slate.

One very interesting quote that was attributed to Chuck Schumer:

Quote

“For every blue-collar Democrat we lose in western Pennsylvania, we will pick up two moderate Republicans in the suburbs in Philadelphia, and you can repeat that in Ohio and Illinois and Wisconsin.”

As the article points out, boy was he wrong.

 

I lol'd at the term Alt-Centre.

[Altherion]

23 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

SA is pretty lenient on free speech. They allow open protest against the government, they allow dissidents, they allow speech against government officials and people. Compared to Russia they're absolutely far better; they aren't murdering dissidents or disappearing them, for instance. They are, as I said, extraordinarily reactionary and conservative in their laws, but those laws largely protect free speech rights.

This is not really related to American politics, but I think you are at least partially mistaken. Russia's laws also protect freedom of speech; that's not the problem. In fact, people are mostly free to speak their minds in Russia -- it's not like the Soviet Union where you could get in trouble for an overheard joke. If you go to the comments sections of online newspapers, they are not dramatically different from those of their American counterparts. There is to some extent even limited freedom of the press, but there do exist two related problems.

First, the limitations on freedom of the press are not trivial. Certain outlets (mainly some newspapers and their online counterparts) are allowed significant latitude on what they can say. At the time of the wars with Georgia and Ukraine, I've seen articles that were severely critical of the decision to fight as well as the tactics used and the economic consequences. However, the national television stations (which have a much larger audience) are tightly controlled; the propaganda there is not trying to hide that it is propaganda and the people who tried to criticize the government via ownership of such means were... persuaded to sell them a long time ago.

The second limitation ties into the last sentence: it's not so much a problem with freedom of speech or freedom of the press (although it impacts them) as one of rule of law. If you annoy somebody powerful in Russia, they can and will go after you through both legal and extralegal means. This is true at all levels of power, but, obviously, the higher up an individual, the greater their capacity for retaliation. This mainly affects freedom of the press and is the reason stories about, say, mistresses of government officials, are not very common in Russia -- it's just not worth it... unless sanctioned by a higher authority. It can also affect freedom of speech if some statement or escapade goes viral or otherwise reaches the ears of people it offends. Note also that this is not specific to speech: if you have something that somebody powerful wants and are not willing to part with it on their terms, they will go after you in much the same way as if you had annoyed them.

I do not personally know whether Saudi Arabia is more or less restrictive than Russia in terms of freedom of speech -- I speak no Arabic at all so all I can go by is foreign or translated sources which are always quite limited and not indicative of internal discussion. From what I have seen of it, I would guess that it has even greater problems with rule of law (take a look at how its court system works), but this is to some extent papered over by its wealth: it has a fifth of Russia's population, but sells more oil so its per capita income is actually quite high.

[Commodore]

the harassment and intimidation of GOP electors has gone largely untold

a curious media might wonder who is funding it