Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
Steel
Topic Started: Nov 10 2003, 06:09 PM (424 Views)
Hoss
Member Avatar
Don't make me use my bare hands on you.
There has been a recent descision by the WTO basically urging the USA to eliminate steel tarrifs it imposed in 2001 ostensibly to protect domestic steel.

Anyway, I am against tarrifs in general, especially for protectionism and disagree with GWB on this. There is apparently a strong lobby in DC from the steel producing states as well.

The US government says that it is within the WTO's clause of protecting domestic producers from import surges. I don't know how true this is.

The EU are complaining about this despite imposing their own steel tarrifs long before this (hypocrits). The EU are also threatening to retaliate by imposing tarrifs on strategic goods from 'battleground' states in the next election. They risk angering American consumers by interfering in domestic politics and elections in my opinion and this is a less than ethical tactic by the EU.

Japan is also angry about this and threatening retaliation.

China is leading the fight as well despite their less that fair attacks on the US dollar (hypocrits, but everyone knew that anyway).

This tarrif does not apply to Canada and Mexico as they are part of NAFTA.

I would like to see the tarrif eliminated as I am a strong proponent of free trade and there is already evidense that the tarrif is causing inflation in the price of goods in the USA.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Admiralbill_gomec
UberAdmiral
I'm also against this tariff. This is one of the FEW disagreements I have with the Bush administration. It does need to go... eventually.

Still, Japan and especially CHINA have been dumping steel on us for years.

I would give the rest of the world a big middle finger, and force them to reduce THEIR tariffs and stop dumping below-cost steel on us before we do squat. While I don't condone tit-for-tat, I'm tired of the whining Euro crybabies and protectionist Asians.

Let's level the playing field and see if China can still compete. Stop the artificial devaluation of the Yuan, too.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Hoss
Member Avatar
Don't make me use my bare hands on you.
I generally don't care if the EU invoke protectionist tarrifs. I believe it only hurts them.

Cheap steel from Japan. Hmmmmm..... I hate it for US steel workers, but we get cheaper products. Maybe this exposes the poorly run US steel foundaries and the anti-capitalist unions and we can see a shift back toward reality in American industry. Competition makes us strong.

This reminds me of all the people crying that all of our jobs are going to Mexico because of NAFTA.

This begs the question in my mind:

Then why, pray tell, are we having so much of a problem with illegal immegration from Mexico? All the jobs are there, why aren't they staying there?

In reality NAFTA has benefitted the US economy, which segues into one of the only things I agreed with Bill Clinton on. :blush:
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Admiralbill_gomec
UberAdmiral
38957
Nov 10 2003, 06:21 PM
I generally don't care if the EU invoke protectionist tarrifs. I believe it only hurts them.

Cheap steel from Japan. Hmmmmm..... I hate it for US steel workers, but we get cheaper products. Maybe this exposes the poorly run US steel foundaries and the anti-capitalist unions and we can see a shift back toward reality in American industry. Competition makes us strong.

This reminds me of all the people crying that all of our jobs are going to Mexico because of NAFTA.

This begs the question in my mind:

Then why, pray tell, are we having so much of a problem with illegal immegration from Mexico? All the jobs are there, why aren't they staying there?

In reality NAFTA has benefitted the US economy, which segues into one of the only things I agreed with Bill Clinton on. :blush:

Did you know that NAFTA was actually a Reagan program? He first proposed it back in 1979, when he was campaigning for president. He envisioned a vast free trade zone extending from Canada to Chile.

Actually, the reason we have so much illegal immigration is that only those with NO skills come here. After all, which jobs are illegals taking? Gardeners, janitors, general laborers (generically known as "Manuel Trabajo" here in Houston). Those with skills stay in their home countries, at least in Latin America.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Swidden
Member Avatar
Adm. Gadfly-at-large; Provisional wRench-fly at large
I tend to agree with the idea that a part of the US steel industry's problem is in its not being able develop more competetive methods.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
benetil
Unregistered

I think it is a little embarrassing that the Bush administration's policy was ruled a "violation" by the WTO. I always thought that the "problem" called for more than a simplistic tariff to bring about a satisfactory solution for the US steel industry (assuming that it is appropriate for steel industry to continue to exist here in the USA).

I just heard Commerce Secretary Don Evans talk about the virtues of global free trade - and actually heard him say that the shedding of relatively high-paying manufacturing jobs (such as jobs in the steel industry - ?) here in the US is not a "zero sum gain" proposition for the US. What a guy to have as Commerce Secretary.

From my point of view, our politicians (and public servants) are more responsive to the demands of foreign special interests than they are to the longer term needs of workers here in the US.
| Quote | ^
 
Admiralbill_gomec
UberAdmiral
Any proof of that Benetil, or is that just an opinion?

Clinton (and China) aside, how are we beholden to foreign interests?
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
captain_proton_au
Member Avatar
A Robot in Disguise

benetil
Nov 10 2003, 07:17 PM
From my point of view, our politicians (and public servants) are more responsive to the demands of foreign special interests than they are to the longer term needs of workers here in the US.

Read that again slowly and I think u will find it a very silly statement. Your politicians and public servants watch out for more than one interest ( ie. the big picture) any overinflated sector is doomed to fail, there are ways around tariffs.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Hoss
Member Avatar
Don't make me use my bare hands on you.
Quote:
 
Did you know that NAFTA was actually a Reagan program? He first proposed it back in 1979, when he was campaigning for president. He envisioned a vast free trade zone extending from Canada to Chile.


I knew that idea NAFTA was around before Clinton, I remember the Perotistas or or whatever screaming about it. I just begrudgingly gave credit to Clinton, because he was actually the guy who signed it.

I also think that you are correct about only the unskilled Mexicans sneaking over to here, but they aren't going to take my job.

The point still stands, that they come over here to bottom feed. Why aren't they bottom feeding in Mexico, because the economy is better here and there are more jobs here. For instance, construction jobs. Why all the construction in the US if all of the jobs are going to Mexico? Why aren't they building factories and refineries and such in Mexico instead of the USA? NAFTA has been good for the USA with the exception of screwing up traffic on the interstate highways here in Texas with tractor-trailer after tractor-trailer. Ever heard of a friggin choo-choo-train? :realmad:

Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
doctortobe
Speak softly, and carry a 57 megaton stick!
You also must consider the better standard of living in America. This not only brings in the illegals, but it means that we pay more for our goods. If we all had the SOL of the average Chineese citizen, then I believe that our trading ability would be much better. You almost always have to give up something good to get something good. It all depends on which thing you think is better.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Admiralbill_gomec
UberAdmiral
38957
Nov 11 2003, 08:48 AM
The point still stands, that they come over here to bottom feed. Why aren't they bottom feeding in Mexico, because the economy is better here and there are more jobs here. For instance, construction jobs. Why all the construction in the US if all of the jobs are going to Mexico? Why aren't they building factories and refineries and such in Mexico instead of the USA? NAFTA has been good for the USA with the exception of screwing up traffic on the interstate highways here in Texas with tractor-trailer after tractor-trailer. Ever heard of a friggin choo-choo-train? :realmad:

Actually, Mexico doesn't like illegals from Central and South America coming into their country. They patrol their southern border rather heavily.

On the OTHER HAND, there are defacto programs in the Mexican governments to help illegals in the United States. For example, the Matricula Consular card (the so-called Illegal Alien card) is a Mexican-government backed ID that their government is pushing to be recognized in the US. It turns out that breeder documents (documents used to obtain matricula cards) are not being accurately crosschecked and corroborated with records in Mexico. Amazingly, same day issuance, often from remote locations with no sophisticated communications equipment, creates security weaknesses in the authentication process.

It has been suggested that these security weaknesses have led to the growth of matricula card fraud, such as a case in Denver in which the INS picked up a man carrying three matricula cards bearing his photograph but showing three separate names.

Contrary to leftist popular belief, all of our jobs are not going to Mexico, China, or India. You're quite right... if they were (construction, for example) all of our illegals would be beating a path back south.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
benetil
Unregistered

Admiralbill_gomec
Nov 10 2003, 08:19 PM
Any proof of that Benetil, or is that just an opinion?

Clinton (and China) aside, how are we beholden to foreign interests?

Hi, Admiralbill_gomec.

I think there's some evidence that supports the generality that I allege - that politicians and public servants are tempted (by money or other favors) to betray the interests of the American public.

You mention the Clinton administration's "policies" toward China (perhaps giving technology, perhaps receiving campaign contributions . . . ). There are two other incidents (scandals) in history that stand out to me - the Hiss-Chambers Case and the Iran Contra Affair. Alger Hiss served time in prison. And if you believe that government "officials" broke the Law in Iran Contra and were then willing to hang some of the responsibility on someone like Oliver North, it further condemns - of course President Reagan was unable to recall . . .

Right now, there are two specific "things" that my government is doing (or not) that have my attention: the fact that many politicians and officials continue to embrace Saudi Arabia as a friend (I view Saudi Arabia as the single largest source of oil and terrorism on earth - we seem to tolerate the latter to guarantee the former) and the lack of an immigration policy that enforces legal immigration into our great nation. In both of these cases - our federal government's dereliction of duty causes terrible problems (illegal immigration is causing economic problems and public service problems for tax payers in California and other states) and I believe that the USA's misguided policy toward Saudi Arabia fosters security risks for the American people - INS still has a very weak grip on exactly who is inside of our nation and where (makes me think that Secretary Ridge's whole department is little more than an escapade) - we need to carry out more meritorious activities than escorting relatives of Osama bin Laden out of the country to ensure their safety.
| Quote | ^
 
somerled
Member Avatar
Admiral MacDonald RN
Hands up anyone here who is / was / or even knows a steelworker.

No one ?

Being possibly the only one here who knows anything about the steel industry maybe I should say something about steel industry protection. Since exactly the same kind of things happened to the Australian steel industry in the 80s and 90s.
Our problem was Japanese, Chinese, South African, Russian and USA steel being dumped in the Australian marketplace at prices that undercut indigenous production (especially rebar, and SBQ and stainless) from countries that actually still protected or encouraged there own steel industries and regarded them as an economic and strategic priority. (All those countries protected their industry while ours was left unprotected and was expected to compete and our main producer actually moved some of their productive capacity offshore - into Indonesia and USA (Delta Steel).)

It is a misnomer that steel plants are poorly managed - on the whole the management in the steel industry is very good and actually leads the way with innovations.
Steelworkers are also (to a man) hard working and very efficient and productive - especially in thre developed world countries including those in USA, Europe, Japan, Australia (and NZ) and though the trades and "semi-skilled" labouring workforce are highly organised, this is not a bad thing.
Most of the work conditions you enjoy today were actually hard won by the predecessors of the current generation of steelworkers through their unions - don't loose sight of that fact.
The case is entirely different in India, the middle east, Poland, China, Brazil, Korea, South Africa, Russia and other "developing countries" who are currently expanding their steelmaking capacities at warp speed (because they need not provide the same work conditions to their steelworkers or are subject to stringent and strickly applied environmental regulations) while the developed world's steel industries are declining at an even faster rate.
If you do not protect your steel industry or provide incentives for it stay or continue (and maintain employment) you risk loosing it entirely.

A great many of your steel plants have gone down the mini-mill route , and have invested huge amounts of money in modernisations of their iron and steel making processes, and in continuous billet, slab and strip casting (EXPENSIVE) and in cleaning up their acts) , and whereas these are an efficient means of producing long and coiled or sheet product they have a big flaw that fully integrated plants did not have - it ties these plants to highly specialised products and as price pressures become tighter their margin becomes narrower and narrower. Eventually these plants can become underutilised as a consequence of their inability to adapt or change product mix easily - it is not a simple matter to adjust the process route - this can be done of cause but it is extraordinarily expensive and a very complex task - I talk from hard won experience in that area. This was the area of my expertise when I was working for the BHP Steel Division.

Perhaps 1 or 2 million people in the USA are directly employed in steel, then there is the multiplier (6x has been used and commonly sited), so maybe 6 - 12 million of your fellow citisens are reliant on your steel industry.

In Newcastle (NSW) our steelworks was closed after 10 years of workforce cutbacks from a peak of over 14000 fulltime employees to 3600 fulltime employees a few years ago at the time of the closure, the result of loosing the wages of so many employees in such a sort time span has been devasting. This is not just because 14000 steelworkers employed at the steelworks paypackets have gone, we also had anxiliary industries what left as well (another maybe 6000 or 10000 people). So 25000 directly steel related workers are go now, along with the jobs the spending power all well paid people generated , and all the services that were no longer required too (tuck-shops, "chuck-waggons", bricklayers, truck drivers, stationary suppliers, telecomms, electricians, specialist consultancies, hardware suppliers etc , etc , etc )- all in a city of 500000 people.

What will happen to your steel towns? - Newcastle has gone from being a powerhouse of industry to largely a domatory and service industry town (we still have the aluminium smelters, the port, 6 power stations and a lot of coal mining in the region) but Newcastle is but a shadow of it old influence and economic dynamism and unemployment is perhaps 20% and this is at LEAST 3 x the national average. (It's actually higher but many ex-steelworkers have actually given up looking for work, or are studying/retraining or are "early" retirees.)

It's very easy for people who know nothing about an industry to make sweeping statements on policy and protection. Just keep in mind that there are consequences (both ways) and more importantly there are consequences for the people in the effected industry who face loosing their livelihoods, homes, and possibly a future on welfare.
In some cases, entire communities may be written off - this has happened, not just in my community, but in towns in the USA, and UK and is inevitably the result when a steelworks is allowed to die. :wacko:
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Wichita
Member Avatar
The Adminstrator wRench
Somerled, I'm agreeing with you twice this morning. B)

My Dad was a steelworker. He did a number of factory jobs throughout his career and spent his last 10 years before retirement working in steel. My brother has over 30 years in the same plant, but in sales.

The original plant is over 100 years old. Some of the tools still used there are as old. Furnaces that large are easier to keep going 24/7 than start and stop depending on the shift. My father was as strong as a bull even in his late 50's and early 60's (despite being a smoker as well) so he fit in well there. The plant actually processes raw steel into a product, but the process is similar.

In the region there was steel making plant. When I was in high school, those not going to college, thought they could count on a lifetime of employment at good wages if they could just get into the steel plant or the plant where my Dad worked.

The steel plant has closed for a period of time and been rebought a couple of time. Currently the union is virtually powerless - they tried methods right out of the 60's and miscalculated. The plant ownership took the opportunity to institute methods that showed why fewer workers were needed for the process and have been pretty successful so far. The plant is still in trouble though and people think of it lasting only as long as the current contract with the workers.

The plant where my Dad worked expanded twice in the last 15 years. The original plant hired (rough estimate) at least 500 men. The first addition runs on less than 100 over 3 shifts. The third addition runs on less than 20 over three shifts. So, despite the fact the plant has tripled in size, the workforce has gone down.

The companies who own the two plants are both international. They easily can play the steelworkers in one country against those in Ohio when talking working conditions.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Admiralbill_gomec
UberAdmiral
somerled
Nov 11 2003, 11:46 PM
Hands up anyone here who is / was / or even knows a steelworker.

I have met a lot of steelworkers, having visited shipyards in Louisiana and Ulsan (ROK).
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Politics and World Events Forum · Next Topic »
Add Reply

Tweet
comments powered by Disqus