Paul MilenkovicYes, seriously. I am not for a second suggesting that the company is losing any money on this. What I am suggesting is that the price differential between the pennies-on-the-dollar paid for the Federal mining lease and the $1800/ounce price of gold plus the markup at the jewellers paid by consumer for a wedding band, that this large "profit" makes the equipment trust payments on the heavy mining equipment and the wages of the workers operating this equipment and other expenses along the supply chain leading to the retail store and finally the consumer. Yes, there is a profit somewhere in there paid to the shareholders or the private-equity investors in all of this. To the extent that the Federal government is subsidizing the purchase of gold wedding rings, what the government is essentially "giving away" is otherwise worthless dirt before some company comes along to make the needed expenditures to turn huge amounts of dirt into small amounts of gold. There have been discussions of "economic rents", where a capitalist sits back and collects a bunch of money, along with a "labor theory of value", where the value of a thing is the sweat and grunt of the workers making a thing. The claim was made of excessive rents paid to the capitalist because of the Federal government as much as "giving away" the mineral riches on Federal lands. I am claiming that a substantial amount of the price of a wedding ring is paid to labor, whether the wages of the equipment operator, the wages of the workers manufacturing and the workers maintaining the heavy equipment and the wages of workers engaged in the materials, fuel and supply chains of this operation.
OK well the analogy via PBS is false (no surprise there PBS is agenda driven in a lot of cases). I looked it up. One TEREX TA400 (commonly used for Gold Mining) carries 41 tons, which for the mine to be economically viable .....
Open pit mine: 1 ton produces min 1 gram per ton
Underground mine: 1 ton produces min 2.5 gram per ton.
Average gold in a gold wedding band: 7 grams. Average gold per TEREX truck should be higher than the min of 40 grams for an open pit mine. Otherwise the mine is losing a lot of money.
CMStPnP Paul Milenkovic What struck me about this is that if it took an entire off-road diesel-electric mining dump truck worth of whatever they dug out of the ground to make one gold wedding band, this operation was essentially converting otherwise worthless dirt into some lucky couple's wedding jewelry? Seriously? Can you just push away and think for a moment if that claim were true how much money that company lost per truck operating from the mine. Unless of course a gold wedding ring sells for a profit margin above what it costs to fuel that truck, provide a trained driver, lease or buy the truck, pay a portion of the rest of the fixed assets of the mining operation. So we are probably talking about a gold wedding ring that would retail for what? Private companies do not operate long hemmoraging money like that.
Paul Milenkovic What struck me about this is that if it took an entire off-road diesel-electric mining dump truck worth of whatever they dug out of the ground to make one gold wedding band, this operation was essentially converting otherwise worthless dirt into some lucky couple's wedding jewelry?
Seriously? Can you just push away and think for a moment if that claim were true how much money that company lost per truck operating from the mine. Unless of course a gold wedding ring sells for a profit margin above what it costs to fuel that truck, provide a trained driver, lease or buy the truck, pay a portion of the rest of the fixed assets of the mining operation. So we are probably talking about a gold wedding ring that would retail for what? Private companies do not operate long hemmoraging money like that.
Yes, seriously.
I am not for a second suggesting that the company is losing any money on this.
What I am suggesting is that the price differential between the pennies-on-the-dollar paid for the Federal mining lease and the $1800/ounce price of gold plus the markup at the jewellers paid by consumer for a wedding band, that this large "profit" makes the equipment trust payments on the heavy mining equipment and the wages of the workers operating this equipment and other expenses along the supply chain leading to the retail store and finally the consumer.
Yes, there is a profit somewhere in there paid to the shareholders or the private-equity investors in all of this. To the extent that the Federal government is subsidizing the purchase of gold wedding rings, what the government is essentially "giving away" is otherwise worthless dirt before some company comes along to make the needed expenditures to turn huge amounts of dirt into small amounts of gold.
There have been discussions of "economic rents", where a capitalist sits back and collects a bunch of money, along with a "labor theory of value", where the value of a thing is the sweat and grunt of the workers making a thing. The claim was made of excessive rents paid to the capitalist because of the Federal government as much as "giving away" the mineral riches on Federal lands. I am claiming that a substantial amount of the price of a wedding ring is paid to labor, whether the wages of the equipment operator, the wages of the workers manufacturing and the workers maintaining the heavy equipment and the wages of workers engaged in the materials, fuel and supply chains of this operation.
If GM "killed the electric car", what am I doing standing next to an EV-1, a half a block from the WSOR tracks?
Paul MilenkovicWhat struck me about this is that if it took an entire off-road diesel-electric mining dump truck worth of whatever they dug out of the ground to make one gold wedding band, this operation was essentially converting otherwise worthless dirt into some lucky couple's wedding jewelry?
BEAUSABRE 1) That land was WORTHLESS until there was transportation to allow shipments of its products to settled areas of the country. Investors needed an incentive to pour money into "railroads to nowhere" and being able to exploit their grants was the primary means 2) "Prior to 1871, only 45,000 miles of track existed in the US. Between 1871 and 1900, another 170,000 miles were laid. Surprisingly, only 18,738 miles of this track was built as a direct result of land grants and loans" 3) Railroads getting land-grants had to give reduced rates for the transportation of government personnel and goods until after World War II. The discounts given for traffic in that war alone repaid the value of the land-grants many times over
1) That land was WORTHLESS until there was transportation to allow shipments of its products to settled areas of the country. Investors needed an incentive to pour money into "railroads to nowhere" and being able to exploit their grants was the primary means
2) "Prior to 1871, only 45,000 miles of track existed in the US. Between 1871 and 1900, another 170,000 miles were laid. Surprisingly, only 18,738 miles of this track was built as a direct result of land grants and loans"
3) Railroads getting land-grants had to give reduced rates for the transportation of government personnel and goods until after World War II. The discounts given for traffic in that war alone repaid the value of the land-grants many times over
There was one other very big reason that the US Government was willing to subsidise the construction of railroads in the western US: The experience with the Civil War showed that railroads had an immense military benefit allowing for rapid deployment of a large number of troops over great distances.
BaltACD MidlandMike ronrunner ...we give mining mineral rights for pennies on the dollar on fed public lands ,,, Mineral rights on public land are not given away, but are publically auctioned off. You can bid on them if you think they are such a good deal. If you are in the business and bid on and get the rights - and you KNOW your business you are still paying pennies on the millions.
MidlandMike ronrunner ...we give mining mineral rights for pennies on the dollar on fed public lands ,,, Mineral rights on public land are not given away, but are publically auctioned off. You can bid on them if you think they are such a good deal.
ronrunner ...we give mining mineral rights for pennies on the dollar on fed public lands ,,,
Mineral rights on public land are not given away, but are publically auctioned off. You can bid on them if you think they are such a good deal.
If you are in the business and bid on and get the rights - and you KNOW your business you are still paying pennies on the millions.
Nobody knows the mining/oil business so well that they know the mineral rights they lease will produce anything economic. And the bidding is competitive.
PBS did a documentary about mineral exploitation destroying the fragile ecosystem of the desert mountain West. They showed video of one of those monster off-road diesel-electric mining dump trucks, and they explained that the contents of the dump truck would be refined into enough gold to make one wedding ring. There was suggestion that private entities were making profits from activities on Federal lands.
What struck me about this is that if it took an entire off-road diesel-electric mining dump truck worth of whatever they dug out of the ground to make one gold wedding band, this operation was essentially converting otherwise worthless dirt into some lucky couple's wedding jewelry?
Because Plate Tectonics, the dirt from the Mountain West dug up by the lease holder was probably a much richer gold ore than the dirt in my Great Lakes Region back yard. But still, this bounty of mineral resources that is leased for "pennies on the dollar" is pretty much valueless dirt. Unless you hire the geologist to decide where you should bid on a lease, conduct the assays to determine that you can make a profit on converting vast quantities of dirt into small amounts of gold, make the equipment trust payments on the excavators, drag lines and dump trucks to mine this dirt, pay the crews operating this equipment, and so on down the line.
Now it could be that mining such large amounts of dirt to provide wedding wings is harming a fragile, desert eco-system. But shouldn't some of the "blame" for this damage to the environment be assigned to eager young couples deciding that they need precious metals to signify their bond to each other? Or maybe we need stricter environmental rules so gold wedding rings cost a little bit more, to pay either for more environmental protections or for some enlightened couples to choose jewelry with less environmental impact?
But I guess it is easier to scapegoat "corporate interests" rather than asking ourselves about what we consume? But does that suggestion that "if you think this is so easy to make obscene profits, you make a bid at a mineral-rights auction, you go out and raise or borrow the money to buy the enormous amounts of equipment to process this low-grade ore, you go out and 'make payroll' on the crews operating the equipment", does that make a person some kind of politically partisan, Ayn Rand quoting, extremist?
Just asking.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
ronrunner...we give mining mineral rights for pennies on the dollar on fed public lands ,,,
charlie hebdo CMStPnP: The GOP folks you named were not Tea Party types or neo-cons, mostly moderates by current standards in the party. City aldermen are not in charge of determining where federal grants to states go.
CMStPnP: The GOP folks you named were not Tea Party types or neo-cons, mostly moderates by current standards in the party.
City aldermen are not in charge of determining where federal grants to states go.
Happy that you got that straightened out.
Reminder: describing someone as a "Tea-Party type" or a "neo-con" is OK on the Forum.
Thanks!
charlie hebdo BEAUSABRE Another tinpot socialist Calling people names on here is a violation of forum TOS, no matter who you are.
BEAUSABRE Another tinpot socialist
Calling people names on here is a violation of forum TOS, no matter who you are.
You have anything against tinpot socialists?
Tinpot socialism is part of my cultural heritage. I am deeply offended a person thinks there is something wrong with being a tinpot socialist.
BEAUSABREAnother tinpot socialist
"we give mining mineral rights for pennies on the dollar on fed public lands"
Another tinpot socialist that doesn't know the facts drags up that ancient canard - consider these things among many
"But most economists feel that the US government came out ahead economically. Settlement resulted in economic activity that resulted in increased federal taxes and, in addition, land grant railroads were mandated to carry mail at reduced rates and soldiers and some government freight without charge until the 1940’s."
"subsidize oil and ethanol for big corporate farms and build pork barrel highways to nowhere"
I'm not aware of any railroads owning "big corporate farms", oil or ethanol refineries or highways. While I agree that government subsidies of business is wrong, try to stay on the subject - RAILROADS
ronrunnerThis NEOCON trend of private good public subsides bad ignores the fact that we give mining mineral rights for pennies on the dollar on fed public lands subsidize oil and ethanol for big corporate farms and build pork barrel highways to nowhere
I've been following for almost 50 years. You cannot assign political labels to PRO or CON for rail transportation. It was Tommy Thompson (R-WI) that was a huge proponent of state revenue bonds for industrial expansion, sat on the Amtrak Board, pushed the Chicago to Milwaukee service in partnership with Mayor Norquist (D-Milwaukee), etc. etc. Ray Lahood, another Republican both wrote the Obama Administration policy on giving grants to HSR projects as well as helped administer the program. Lets also not forget George W Bush who presided over the startup of the first state subsidized Amtrak train in Texas history as Governor (Heartland Flyer) and pushed through close to a Billion in DART light rail grants as President. I believe it was William Gardner (Another Republican), that founded the WSOR and had numerous meetings with Wisconsin State Legislators for grant money to his early shortline (over $100+ million in track and bridge improvements to WSOR funded mostly by the state to date). They had to also amend the State Constitution before they could contribute a penny which was no easy thing. Significant accomplishments for all.
You will also find that in Milwaukee, it was a solid Democratic Party block of Milwaukee alderpeople that attempted to divert Obama's 800 Million for Wisconsin High Speed rail directly over to Milwaukee area highway improvements before someone told them the wording of the grants prohibited such a diversion. This happened prior to any action Governor Walker took against the program, rarely mentioned today though.
ronrunner This NEOCON trend of private good public subsides bad ignores the fact that we give mining mineral rights for pennies on the dollar on fed public lands subsidize oil and ethanol for big corporate farms and build pork barrel highways to nowhere
This NEOCON trend of private good public subsides bad ignores the fact that we give mining mineral rights for pennies on the dollar on fed public lands subsidize oil and ethanol for big corporate farms and build pork barrel highways to nowhere
I think this matter of public subsidies and who supports them and for what reasons may be more complicated than described.
Overmod The 'newsworthy' issue here is not 'dog bites man' but that the man has received two coherent letter responses from the dog in question concerning how and why he plans to bite. That is what makes his post (and this thread) interesting... presuming [as I haven't seen them] that they aren't form letters or word-processor-arranged boilerplate sent out over his signature. When Kay Bailey Hutchinson was the head of some major committee affecting rail transportation, I attempted to contact her office... to be told that because I wasn't a voting constituent of her district they had no time for me.
The 'newsworthy' issue here is not 'dog bites man' but that the man has received two coherent letter responses from the dog in question concerning how and why he plans to bite. That is what makes his post (and this thread) interesting... presuming [as I haven't seen them] that they aren't form letters or word-processor-arranged boilerplate sent out over his signature.
When Kay Bailey Hutchinson was the head of some major committee affecting rail transportation, I attempted to contact her office... to be told that because I wasn't a voting constituent of her district they had no time for me.
Van Taylor (R-TX) is a former Gulf War jarhead, he knows I am a Veteran as well in roughly the same cohort. So there is that. He is also very honest and I have participated on more than one of his conference calls. Typically I have found a Congressperson will respond better if they see interest over a period of time as they interpret activist potential or perhaps future office help.....just guessing there though. Been my experience in Texas. Senator Cornyn still uses my military title in correspondence because I first contacted him via a Veterans issue a friend of mine was having.
FOX News correspondent Pete Hegseth is in my regimental affiliation group and we served in the same BN and regiment at different times. Never spoke to him one on one but you can see him on FOX News wearing either the regimental crest on his lapel or the 101st pin.
CMStPnP FYI-, So I had a conversation via two seperate letters with my Congressperson, Van Taylor (R-TX). We are in 100% agreement with High Speed Rail when privately funded and the benchmarks it needs to achieve along with any potential ancillary government support. So that is good news in part as he has not taken the large land owner position in any way or come up with various hokey eminent domain pushbacks. He even supports changing the law to make privately run High Speed Rail more viable. Disagrees with me on Federal Funding of Amtrak feels it's great Amtrak is attempting to reduce it's subsidy and become less dependent but wants to zero out it's subsidy.....which is not so great. Happily I am getting at least 50% of what I want and it reads like the remaining 50% is workable but needs a lot of work yet.
FYI-,
So I had a conversation via two seperate letters with my Congressperson, Van Taylor (R-TX). We are in 100% agreement with High Speed Rail when privately funded and the benchmarks it needs to achieve along with any potential ancillary government support. So that is good news in part as he has not taken the large land owner position in any way or come up with various hokey eminent domain pushbacks. He even supports changing the law to make privately run High Speed Rail more viable.
Disagrees with me on Federal Funding of Amtrak feels it's great Amtrak is attempting to reduce it's subsidy and become less dependent but wants to zero out it's subsidy.....which is not so great. Happily I am getting at least 50% of what I want and it reads like the remaining 50% is workable but needs a lot of work yet.
A "dog bites man" story may be newsworthy, and a dog bite may be unpleasant for the man getting bitten, but it isn't anything terribly outside the natural state of affairs. Some dogs will bite some people given the correct circumstances for that sort of thing.
A "man bites dog" story may not only be newsworthy, it is entirely unexpected. People, generally speaking, don't go around biting dogs. We are socialized to regard doing such a thing as an extreme cruelty to a dog. Most of us also have enough fear that if we did such a thing, we will be attacked by the dog, and we don't want to provoke a dog in that way.
I think what we have here is in the dog-bites-man category. You may not be happy that a member of Congress with the party affiliation and representing the state mentioned above is not 100% enthusiastic of Federal support for Amtrak, but members of Congress with this party affiliation from that part of the US tend, generally speaking, tend to be aligned that way. Whether such a person deeply feels that way is hard to tell, but they were elected by voters with similar political beliefs.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.