It seems someone or something finally got through to him.

Whoo hoo!! My letters to Congress actually made a difference!!!


*Disclaimer: I really did write letters, I really don't think they made any difference.

We knew it was a stalling game when it happened originally. Same with EU and bananas, Japanese and Australia Salmon, etc, etc. You can easily gain a year or more of industry relief with tarriffs before the DSB finally whacks ya.

However, there is a problem to address:
Antidumping is an issue. Japan is notorious for trying to dump steel here cheaper than it costs them, in an effort to drive our steel industry into its grave. If that ever happens, Japanese still prices will soar, and they'll get quite a tidy profit. Japanese companies plan in terms of decades, and are willing to suffer for a few years to gain greater future rewards.

Subsidies are another issue. While the US has gotten on the subsidy bandwagon in the last 20 years, it still does not funnel money to companies the way the EU (moderate) or Japan (heavy) funnel money. 15 years ago Harvard economist Lester Thurow used this to define the distinctions between the US, EU, and "pacific rim" -- the three great economic powers. He put the Pacific Rim on the "communistic capitalism" end of the scale because the government directly subsidizes industry.

How does this affect the US steel business? Well, let's use air travel as an example. United was making a real bid for air travel business in Europe, and basically in mathematical terms had a 1% industry-wide margin of efficiency on Airbus. This allowed it to scoop up lots of routes and passengers. What did the UK do? Well, it realized that it could subsidize Airbus with an amount just big enough to offset that efficiency margin (plus a little extra). The whole thing then flip-flopped, Airbus started getting all the routes, and United left the building.

Once the gummint starts doling out to industry it mucks up free trade just as much as a tarriff.

<font color=orange>Yeah, wonder how many steel jobs that will cost in PA, OH and WV? Anyone got any ideas what an out of work steel worker with a minimal education can do? Hate to see the American Steel Industry finally slide into the briny deep. But I guess it had to go sometime.</font>

Actually, it could save the industry. Tarriffs keep all the inefficient (unable to compete) steel companies wheezing and puttering along. Without the tarriffs, the ones at the bottom of the barrel will kick, but other more healthy companies can pick up their facilities and compete better.

Yes, some jobs and factories will go. In fact, I'm currently working on a deal where a foreign company is buying a steel company from bankruptcy, and simply intends to pick up the factory and cart it overseas.

However, if the tarriffs stayed in place it would spell doom for the whole industry on down the line.

Besides, let's face it, Unions have really killed the steel industry. A full-time steel worker of 20 years makes upwards of $70K a year. Is that a fair wage? Let us add on his benefits package (which costs a lot because he's going to end up dying of some horrible cancer or debilitative disease he picks up at the ironworks) and you see this employee's loaded cost can be nearly six figures. That makes it hard for the company to eek out a profit.

Then one has to wonder what they are doing differently. ;) Oh and the US is not in a position to gripe about subsidies. [img]graemlins/idontagreeatall.gif[/img]

What is needed is for the steel industry to modernize. But the unions will not allow this because it will mean fewer jobs for them. So instead of some of them losing their jobs, they'll all lose them.

Yes, it most certainly is. Without the communistic capitalism practices of other nations, our government would dole out fewer subsidies. Ergo, EU and Pacific Rim subsidies force us to do the same. Society is better off letting unhealthy businesses expire rather than sending them more money.

Yes, it most certainly is. Without the communistic capitalism practices of other nations, our government would dole out fewer subsidies. Ergo, EU and Pacific Rim subsidies force us to do the same. Society is better off letting unhealthy businesses expire rather than sending them more money. </font>[/QUOTE]Ahh the ol' finger pointing and its them that started it attitude [img]graemlins/fighting.gif[/img]

When poor little countries that can not afford to subsidise like Australia have now lost jobs and major steel making plants in recent years in part from the American and Japanese and EU, I'm not real impressed by that argument. :(

[ 12-05-2003, 07:02 AM: Message edited by: wellard ]

If this is serious and you did write a letter than all credit to you and thankyou. The volume of letters can show the goverment that people can see through this cynical crap. [img]graemlins/awesomework.gif[/img]

They knew they where breaking the law the sly scum they where just letting the slow wheels of justice buy them time :mad:

[ 12-05-2003, 04:15 AM: Message edited by: wellard ]

This has already happened in most of the industrialised wold. The steel industry in Britain has been streamlined and many steel workers lost their jobs. More British workers lost their jobs because of the US tarif on steel. How do steel tariffs affect those US workers that work in industries that use steel (such as the motor manufacturers)? It costs them more and the costis passed on to the consumer.

There are only two small groups that benefit from steel tariffs - one is the US steel manufacturers - can you guess who the other group are?

Ah yes poor little US. ;) Still why are you entitled to gripe about subsidies? You are using it and can afford it. Shouldn't it be the countries that suffers from your (and EVERYBODY else's) subsidies? Practically every country outside the west. Now they have reasons to gripe about our subsidies, not the US. And then you can point fingers all you want.

Sorry, guys, I've said my peace. It's simple: the US would not have entered the subsidy game without being forced to. Until about the time of the Chrysler bail-out, the US had shied from subsidies. It played the "nationalized industry" game (with the airline industry, for example) for a bit, which is truly a form of subsidy, but was first in leading the world away from this model as well. In fact, airline deregulation in the US was the model which inspired the Torries. Anyway, that's several other tales, and offtopic. I said my peace, we differ.

If this is serious and you did write a letter than all credit to you and thankyou. The volume of letters can show the goverment that people can see through this cynical crap. [img]graemlins/awesomework.gif[/img]

They knew they where breaking the law the sly scum they where just letting the slow wheels of justice buy them time :mad: </font>[/QUOTE]Oh it was/is certainly true. I've also written letters on Farm Subsidies, the National debt, The prisoners in Cuba, and the synthetic fuels fiasco.

Getting rdy to write letters in regard to this whole bidding in Iraq thing.

Oh, and to comment to your earlier comments (and others) about subsidies...there is absolutley nothing wrong for a developing country (or even a developed one in rare cases) to subsidize VIRGIN industries to help them get on their feet. The problem is when a leg up turns into a hand out...and when the subisidy is a crutch rather than a flu shot (if that analogy made any sense)