US aluminum and steel mills restating idle plants...

[vraiblonde]

we are talking about tarrifs, not outsourcing.

Wait for it....

Or do you honestly not understand the correlation?

 

[Hijinx]

I don't know what other people think about this (and I really do not care) but we need a viable steel industry in this country.
We also need a viable clothing manufacturer.

I certainly pray we never go to war, but if we do our National Security depends on us getting the steel and clothing we need to fight that war.
If it costs a little more to put Americans to work and to have industry in this country, It's a price we must pay.

 

[Bird Dog]

we are talking about tarrifs, not outsourcing. I am against increased taxes. There are other ways to fight the trade war than to tax americans.

I'll wait for you to explain this one.......genius

 

[Chris0nllyn]

But it did work before. Until the politicians and the union bosses and the global moneymen got involved, it worked just fine.



Walk with me a minute:

Steel workers employed; making good money; communities are economically thriving.
Politician says, "Hey, my buddy in another country can get us steel for much cheaper."
We import foreign steel.
US steel plants close; steel workers are unemployed; communities crash into economic decline.

You can rail about higher steel prices - OR you can celebrate people being employed and their communities being revitalized, which also puts money back into the economy and the Treasury.

It did not work just fine and had nothing to do with unions or politicians. Not sure what metrics you can point to that shows "it worked just fine". In 2002, when Bush tried this very same thing, steel mfrs had few competitors, allowing them to jack up the price of steel. With the price of steel high, an estimated 200,000 people in steel-consuming industries lost their jobs. Steel consumers had difficulty finding the quality and quantity of steel they needed, forcing them to relocate their facilities overseas.
https://theconversation.com/what-do...bush-administrations-2002-steel-tariffs-90567

Mind you, all that happened in one year, as the tariffs were reversed in 2003. Not exactly what I would consider "work[ing] just fine".

70% of steel used in the US is already made here and American steel production hasn't changed much with an increase since 2010.

Is these 500 jobs worth everyone spending more on cars?

For one example, Harley-Davidson produces 230,000 bikes per year. 1/5 of them are shipped to Europe and Japan. After Trump's tariff announcement, the European Commission plans to impose tariffs on American-made goods, including a 25% tariff on motorcycles. So, Harley not only will pay more for their steel/aluminum to build bikes, but will be hit with a tariff on bikes sent to Europe. How does that help the more than 500 people that work for Harley?

In a statement, Harley now says, “Import tariffs on steel and aluminum will drive up costs for all products made with these raw materials, regardless of their origin. Additionally, a punitive, retaliatory tariff on Harley-Davidson motorcycles in any market would have a significant impact on our sales, our dealers, their suppliers and our customers in those markets."

https://www.jsonline.com/story/mone...uropean-union-tariffs-harley-bikes/398246002/

If you care to read that story you'll see that Harley is planning to build a factory in India to to tariffs on their bikes there. Harley scaled back production in the US to open a plant there. Same thing in Thailand. How did those tariffs help America?
https://www.usatoday.com/story/mone...-city-plant-motorcycle-sales-fall/1078008001/

Will the tariffs help a few hundred, maybe a few thousand people get jobs in steel mills(140,000 people work in steel-producing industries while 5+ million work in steel-consuming)? Absolutely. But it must be weighed against the vast number of people that work on the downstream, steel/sluminum-consuming industries that will be affected. Is Toyota more, or less, likely to expand production in the US with higher prices of commodities? Will they be more likely to higher more people?

If you think union bosses were the problem before, what's stopping them from doing it again? A tariff on imported steel used to protect US forms from competition is really a subsidy and does not incentivise those companies to produce product efficiently (cheaper). Subsidies go to management/bonuses/and union bosses meeting with politicians to get more. When competition is reduced, so is efficiency and cost goes up. There's then a perpetual cycle of increased quality-adjusted costs of their product, making exports less competitive elsewhere, in turn increasing the need to maintain a subsidy/tariff. Economists have this term called "excess burden of taxation". Competitive advantages realized by a few politically influential firms from government subsidies are more than offset by the competitive disadvantages those subsidies inflict on other firms.

1. Tariffs Often Hurt More American Jobs Than They Protect
•Tariffs designed to protect the domestic steel industry may directly affect 140,000 US steel workers, but there are approximately 5.4 million workers in steel-consuming manufacturing sectors who will be hurt by higher steel prices as a result.
•After the import tax on steel in March 2002, steel prices increased, and more people lost their jobs in steel-consuming sectors than in the entire steel industry.
2. Tariffs Hurt the Manufacturing Sector
•The job losses in American manufacturing have overwhelmingly come from increased productivity rather than trade competition.
•Intermediate goods imports account for 43 percent of US imports.
•Because many American manufacturing jobs now rely on imported raw materials, tariffs drive up the cost of manufacturing in the United States. That means tariffs can kill American manufacturing jobs by making it relatively cheaper for companies to produce goods in other countries.

3. Tariffs Are a Punitive Tax on American Consumers
•Tariffs on consumer goods, like washing machines, raise the prices of those goods.
•Like other price increases, tariffs force consumers to spend or save less money. That reduces the amount of money available either to businesses to invest in workers or to banks to lend to growing firms.
•Tire tariffs in 2009 significantly increased costs for Americans buying cars and trucks. American consumers paid approximately $1.1 billion in higher prices. The average cost per job saved was estimated to be nearly $1 million.

4. Tariffs Benefit Special Interests
•Trade barriers have historically been one of the dominant ways in which special interests seek government privilege.
•Current law prevents the International Trade Commission from considering the overall economic effects of proposed tariffs. That means that tariff consideration, by default, values the benefits to specific companies or industries more than the costs imposed on the rest of the economy.

5. Tariffs Hurt Investment
•The Solar Energy Industries Association projects that the 30 percent tariffs on solar panels would cancel billions of dollars in investment, weaken demand, and eliminate 23,000 installation jobs in America.
•One firm immediately cancelled a $20 million investment in a new factory projected to create hundreds of new jobs.

6. Imports Are a Vital Component in America’s Economy
•Exports and imports are 11.9 percent and 14.7 percent of the US economy, respectively, more than double what they were 50 years ago. A big part of that trade is in intermediate goods, which are in-between raw materials and final goods. More than 15 percent of US imports are intermediates.
•Overall, imports contribute 15.3 percent of the value of US exports. Two of our most competitive industries — advanced manufacturing and energy — are among the most reliant on imports.

7. Tariffs Often Result in Retaliation from Trading Partners
•When the United States imposed tariffs on Chinese-made solar panels between 2012 and 2015, China imposed tariffs on polysilicon, which increased the cost of solar equipment and lowered employment for both countries.
•China is reportedly already weighing its options to retaliate against US plans to hike aluminum and steel import tariffs.
•Even the risk of retaliatory trade policy can create uncertainty in an industry, hurting investment and job growth.

8. Trade Deficits Are Not a Justification for Tariffs
•Trade deficit calculations do not include the $4.4 trillion that foreign countries invest in America. When accounting for that investment, the trade deficit closes.
•When people in other countries sell goods to America, they spend the dollars they receive on US exports or assets, or they exchange those dollars with others who will purchase US exports or assets. This means that America’s international accounts are always balanced.
•Moreover, countries with higher tariffs tend to have higher trade deficits.

9. Tariffs Slow Economic Growth
•Average American tariffs fell from almost 60 percent in 1932 to under five percent in 2018.
•The International Monetary Fund has found that these types of reductions in trade barriers can “boost productivity and output,” which can, in turn, mean faster rates of economic growth.
•Economic growth in the late 19th century, while sometimes attributed to high trade barriers, actually resulted from significant population growth and accumulated capital. Tariffs during that time may have hurt growth by raising prices on capital imports.

10. Tariffs Do Not Promote National Security
•Despite foreign competition, the United States is still a major steel producing nation, and the US military has sufficient access to steel to maintain our national defense. National security needs accounted for only three percent of US steel shipments in 2015.
•Because of uncertainty in international trade rules, using a national security justification for a tariff is considered a “nuclear option” that can risk upsetting the entirety of international trade law.
•Tariffs on steel imports are likely to primarily affect industries with no connection to national security interests.

https://www.mercatus.org/commentary/ten-things-you-need-know-about-tariffs

 

[vraiblonde]

I don't know what other people think about this (and I really do not care) but we need a viable steel industry in this country.
We also need a viable clothing manufacturer.

I certainly pray we never go to war, but if we do our National Security depends on us getting the steel and clothing we need to fight that war.
If it costs a little more to put Americans to work and to have industry in this country, It's a price we must pay.

THIS!!!! ^^^

Global reliance is a great way to wreck your country. And I understand that there are many in these United States who want that very thing, but too bad for them they can't have it. We can't allow that. If they want to be Socialists and dependents they can go live in Europe. Anyone with even a nodding acquaintance with history understands why global reliance is dangerous and a threat to sovereignty.

 

[vraiblonde]

It did not work just fine

Yes, it did. Just because you weren't alive for it doesn't mean it didn't happen.

You can post all the opinion pieces you want to and they will have no effect on my opinion that is based on historical perspective. I'm not even going to waste my time reading them because I don't care what those people think. Just because the have .org in their website address doesn't make them an expert.

If you want to play that game, I'll flurry you with opinion pieces supporting US manufacturing and import tariffs. Think that might change your mind? A bunch of opinion pieces?

Yeah, I feel the same way about the opinion pieces you use to support your WRONG argument.

 

[Bird Dog]

For one example, Harley-Davidson produces 230,000 bikes per year. 1/5 of them are shipped to Europe and Japan. After Trump's tariff announcement, the European Commission plans to impose tariffs on American-made goods, including a 25% tariff on motorcycles. So, Harley not only will pay more for their steel/aluminum to build bikes, but will be hit with a tariff on bikes sent to Europe. How does that help the more than 500 people that work for Harley?


https://www.jsonline.com/story/mone...uropean-union-tariffs-harley-bikes/398246002/

If you care to read that story you'll see that Harley is planning to build a factory in India to to tariffs on their bikes there. Harley scaled back production in the US to open a plant there. Same thing in Thailand. How did those tariffs help America?
https://www.usatoday.com/story/mone...-city-plant-motorcycle-sales-fall/1078008001/

Is this the same Harley Davidson that was going out of business until the USA put tariffs on Japanese bikes......tell me more

 

[Chris0nllyn]

I don't know what other people think about this (and I really do not care) but we need a viable steel industry in this country.
We also need a viable clothing manufacturer.

I certainly pray we never go to war, but if we do our National Security depends on us getting the steel and clothing we need to fight that war.
If it costs a little more to put Americans to work and to have industry in this country, It's a price we must pay.

THIS!!!! ^^^

Global reliance is a great way to wreck your country. And I understand that there are many in these United States who want that very thing, but too bad for them they can't have it. We can't allow that. If they want to be Socialists and dependents they can go live in Europe. Anyone with even a nodding acquaintance with history understands why global reliance is dangerous and a threat to sovereignty.

What, in your eyes, constitutes a "viable steel industry"? The US produces about the same amount of steel globally as Japan, India, South Korea, Russia, and Turkey.

Spare me the national security angle as most of our imports crom from Canada. Not exactly the country that will rise up against us. Anyone with ecnomics knowledge knows that we live in a global economy and trading with the world helps Americans and those countries.

Apple gets raw materials from 63 countries, sends them to 34 countries for processing. Multiple countries then assemble the products. All that helps Americans by making high quality, technologically advanced phones affordable. Global trade makes Apple phones profitable to produce, allowing Apple to employ and support more than a half million people in the US alone.

 

[Chris0nllyn]

Yes, it did. Just because you weren't alive for it doesn't mean it didn't happen.

You can post all the opinion pieces you want to and they will have no effect on my opinion that is based on historical perspective. I'm not even going to waste my time reading them because I don't care what those people think. Just because the have .org in their website address doesn't make them an expert.

If you want to play that game, I'll flurry you with opinion pieces supporting US manufacturing and import tariffs. Think that might change your mind? A bunch of opinion pieces?

Yeah, I feel the same way about the opinion pieces you use to support your WRONG argument.

You don't think I was alive in 2002?

What opinion pieces did I post? Everything I posted is fact. With sources.

 

[vraiblonde]

You don't think I was alive in 2002?

Oh, I'm sorry. I was unaware that the US steel industry was invented in 2002.

 

[Sapidus]

Yeah, they're probably much better off on welfare and living in government housing in a dead city.

You Leftists do love your dystopia, don't you?

500 people hardly makes a dead city. And its not all or nothing either this job or walking the streets selling their bodies. Why must everything be your way or some apocalyptic vision of despair?

 

[Bird Dog]

Apple gets raw materials from 63 countries, sends them to 34 countries for processing.

Not for long.....
http://www.scmworld.com/mine-matter-apples-circular-vision-raw-material-sourcing/

 

[Bird Dog]

500 people hardly makes a dead city. And its not all or nothing either this job or walking the streets selling their bodies. Why must everything be your way or some apocalyptic vision of despair?

Of course not...Chicago and B'more kill or cripple up and kill more than that in one year...just sayin'

 

[Chris0nllyn]

Is this the same Harley Davidson that was going out of business until the USA put tariffs on Japanese bikes......tell me more

Outside of the little details on the tariff that didn't even help Harley, Reagan imposed those tariffs in 1983 and lifted the tariff in 1987 (at the request of Harley). Harley's dip in net income started dropping in 2006 (in 2009 and 2010, net income was negative).

 

[Clem72]

Well continue that "walk" now the prices for all goods and services that include steel and aluminum are going to cost more so even though those people are employed they are now paying a higher price for everything so are they really ahead?

So just to be clear, this is a consistent argument for you and you under no circumstances would claim the exact opposite to be true. For instance if someone were to claim that there should be no minimum wage.

 

[Chris0nllyn]

Oh, I'm sorry. I was unaware that the US steel industry was invented in 2002.

Tariffs. Tariffs. We're talking about tariffs on the steel industry.

The last time a tariff was placed on the steel industry was in 2002 by Bush.

That's why I replied "It didn't work before..." one post after you said "Tariffs, ya'll", in a thread about steel.

I also discussed it in the very first paragraph of my post above.

 

[Bird Dog]

Outside of the little details on the tariff that didn't even help Harley, Reagan imposed those tariffs in 1983 and lifted the tariff in 1987 (at the request of Harley). Harley's dip in net income started dropping in 2006 (in 2009 and 2010, net income was negative).

...but the truth is, without the tariffs, they would of gone bankrupt. The tariffs gave them the breathing room they needed.
So your comment is BS unless you can prove it without some left anti-Reagan article.
...and what did Reagan’s tariffs have to do with Harley’s earning after 2000.....genius

 

[Chris0nllyn]

Not for long.....
http://www.scmworld.com/mine-matter-apples-circular-vision-raw-material-sourcing/

Sure about that?

In an interview, Lisa Jackson, its Vice President of Environment, Policy and Social Initiatives, admitted that Apple doesn’t know yet quite how it will be achieved. But she said that future needs would likely be met by a combination of recycled materials bought from suppliers and those recovered from Apple products.

This suggests that responsible sourcing efforts will be continue to be necessary, since the smelters that Apple, Intel and other hi-tech companies have targeted this work at process recycled and virgin materials together in the same facilities.

 

[Bird Dog]

Sure about that?

Yes!
Thanks for confirming my post

 

[Chris0nllyn]

...but the truth is, without the tariffs, they would of gone bankrupt. The tariffs gave them the breathing room they needed.
So your comment is BS unless you can prove it without some left anti-Reagan article.

Let's say you're correct, why is it the government's job to prop up a failing company?

What comment is BS, specifically? I'm happy to steer you as to why the tariffs did not help. Key point to remember is that the tariff applied to engines larger than 700cc (and only applied to Japanese bikes, not German, Italian, or British) and the recession that occured during the same time frame that affected all mfrs.