| > There would be no economic loss. Taking cash from the economy, which is a productive asset, useful for investment, and purchasing land which you plan to do nothing with, is most definitely an economic loss. There is no question about this step. >It's hard to get exact numbers and >I think the basic idea is sound So give us an estimate. Mine is orders of magnitude above what billionaires could affect. It's vastly more than the difference between the gap between value of coal versus mineral rights. I produced a first estimate. Hand waving without giving a more refined estimate does not make it go away. Another factor is to slow down production today one has to buy more than mineral rights - one has to buy working mines, possibly related infrastructure/equipment/contracts if the mine owner (or other interested/entwined parties) have investment that goes to waste if the mine closes, etc. So the above, merely estimating the coal, while a simple estimate, may be close to actual costs involved to purchasing the coal mining industry out from under itself. You also ignore the fact I stated that as places get purchased, since this does not change demand, so other places will simply produce more or more places will become coal mines. The billionaire plan, even at its most perfect execution, is unlikely to affect the overall production much at all. |
No man. The cash doesn't evaporate. It goes to the sellers of the rights, who then plug it right back into the economy. They may even go right back and purchase that same stock! If it makes it clearer, try to think of the coal rights as a bond with zero interest rate. Obviously, people trading the bond around doesn't destroy value.
> Give us an estimate.
I'm not sure your 20 trillion dollar estimate is very relevant. Most folks see the next 30-40 years as the key phase we need to get right, after which the switch to renewable will be more or less complete. In other words, your usage of 400 years of coal WAAAAAY overstates the size of the problem. But yeah sure I'll throw some numbers up.
If you assume mineral rights are 5% of total cost (if you buy them intelligently), and that you can rustle up $5B in cash, and that in the next 30 years you have a gradual slowdown of coal usage anyways, then the scheme cuts between 10 and 20% of US coal production. Not too shabby. Now, I admit my numbers are soft and optimistic, but it's by no means "orders of magnitude" below what it needs to be.
> Another factor is to slow down production today one has to buy more than mineral rights
I see no reason why this is the case. According to the article the gov't owns most of the rights, and the whole idea is to make it easy for private actors to buy just the rights.
> You also ignore the fact I stated that as places get purchased, since this does not change demand, so other places will simply produce more or more places will become coal mines.
Well yeah, but at higher cost. Producers are forced to use less optimal sites, and to outbid each other. This lowers overall production as coal is made less competitive than gas/oil/renewables. That's the whole point.