On 26/12/2011 11:45, Doctor Drivel wrote:

"John Williamson" wrote in message
...
Doctor Drivel wrote:

"ARWadsworth" wrote in message
...
Doctor Drivel wrote:

And it left the miners able to hold the country to ransom. They
brought down the previous Conservative government,

They never. Heath couldn't handle industry properly. Lack of
investment, poor management, etc, etc. Miners were poorly paid
working in appalling conditions.

Again..
"It was NOT subsidised. Coal created economic growth. Coal provided
the energy to create electricity. The economic growth was cycled
back to get the energy. Understand that."

Coal mining in the UK was not profitable.

Idiot, again...
"It was NOT subsidised. Coal created economic growth. Coal provided
the energy to create electricity. The economic growth was cycled back
to get the energy. Understand that."

It cost more to dig the coal out than it could be sold for.

Not another one. If London Underground was run on ticket sales only half
would be closed down and tickets would be £20 a go. London, economically
would decline rapidly.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=47Jb-rlXJYg

Harrison's points include:-

* Passengers pay twice
* Trains pay for themselves
* Trains more than covers their costs
* Governments can pay for railways without taxing their citizens
* Investment in railways yields huge profits
* The problem is the way governments pay for the capital they invest in
the tracks and rolling stock
* Payback is like winning the lottery
* The Jubilee line raised productivity in the London economy. Every one
pound invested provided a payback of 4 pounds
* That is what railways do, make the economy more efficient
* Who pocketed the fat profit? Not the shareholders, not the taxpayers,
wages were not raised
* Profits cascaded into the profits of the land owners
* Taxes destroy jobs

.. and he's right, you know.

The same applies to economic growth creating energy - COAL

The comparison is false. If I want to travel into London, I must use
whatever transport infrastructure is there and it must either charge the
true (even if expensive) cost or be subsidised at a cost to the UK (or
local) taxpayer. If I want to run a power station on coal, I will not
use very expensive coal, so either the UK taxpayer must pay again or I
will import cheaper coal! The economic benefit of subsidising coal is
therefore NOT the benefits and economic growth that coal/power brings,
it is only the number of mineworkers and support workers that the
industry supports. This means that the required subsidies can rapidly
outweigh the benefits.

SteveW