Fixing the Ghetto

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
185

[quote]pittbulll wrote:
dhickey wrote:
pittbulll wrote:

Reagan job was to do the best by the country, not do the best by the market. Just think of the lost taxes on the income of employees alone and not any other supporting industry

Best by the country as a whole or one particular industry? Free trade gives us far more jobs than it takes away. Look what happened after NAFTA.

NAFTA is a trade agreement, give me an example where we compete with third world countries industries and can beat their price, I agree there is a short upside to lower prices.
We will not mention lead base paint, melamine in the protein powder, just price
Also please answer what happened to America post, Thanks
[/quote]

We don’t have to compete with them in any particular industry. They are third world contries for a reason. We can focus on what others cannot do. Comparative advantage.

copy and paste:

U.S. employment increased over the period of 1993-2007 from 110.8 million people to 137.6 million people, a 24 percent increase.[1] Specifically within NAFTA?s first five years of existence, 709,988 jobs (140,000 annually), were created domestically.[2]

Proponents point out that had there been any significant negative impact on the labor force because of NAFTA, it would have been evident in the initial years. Yet, the mid to late nineties was one of the United States? biggest periods of economic growth.

Classical macroeconomic theory stipulates that when a country is experiencing economic growth (i.e. increase in GDP or GDP per capita), then there will also be an increase in the participation of the labor force.[3] Thus, because trade liberalization ultimately contributes to increases in GDP, it in effect, helps to bring the rate of unemployment down in a country.

The U.S. experienced a 48% increase in real GDP from 1993-2005. The unemployment rate over this period was an average of only 5.1%, compared to 7.1% from 1982-1993, before NAFTA was implemented.[2]

Proponents reject the claims of some that the free trade agreement is destroying the manufacturing industry and causing displacement of workers in that industry. In the period of 1981-1995, the years from ?93-?95 saw the highest rate of job loss, even during this period of great expansion.[4]

However, the rate of job loss due to plant closings, a typical argument against NAFTA, showed little deviation from previous periods.[4] The percentage of workers in the manufacturing industry with job loss actually decreased from 13.8 % in 1991-1993, pre-NAFTA years, to 11.8% in the years from 1993-1995.

Also, US industrial production, in which manufacturing makes up 78%, saw an increase of 49% from 1993-2005. The period prior to NAFTA, 1982-1993, only saw a 28% increase.[2] In fact, according to NAM, National Association of Manufacturers, NAFTA has only been responsible for 10% of the manufactured goods trade deficit, something opponents criticize the agreement for helping to foment.[5]

In the manufacturing sector, NAFTA yielded 43% of US manufacturing export growth and only 28% of import growth.

The most direct measurement of the impact of trade agreements on employment is the number of jobs supported by exports.[6] It is estimated that 8500 manufacturing jobs are supported by every $1 billion in US exports.[2] Because $12 billion of average annual gains in exports were created by expansion of North American trade, more than 100,000 additional US jobs were created.[2]

More importantly, it has been noted that in export-oriented industries where some of the lost manufacturing jobs go, wages are 13-16 percent higher than the national average.[2]

Others agree with the notion that there has been an increase in net jobs due to NAFTA?s implementation, but believe that these net gains are coming at the price of worker?s wages.[citation needed] That is, high-paying manufacturing jobs are being lost and replaced by lower paying jobs and is causing wage deflation in certain sectors.

However, during the Clinton administration, the sources of new job creation were in relatively high paid sectors and industries.[7] The fall in median wages, which are often associated with the middle class factory workers, stagnated because the inflation-adjusted pay rates for existing jobs fell, not because newer jobs that replaced manufacturing jobs were low-paying ones.[citation needed]

186

[quote]dhickey wrote:
pittbulll wrote:
dhickey wrote:
pittbulll wrote:

Reagan job was to do the best by the country, not do the best by the market. Just think of the lost taxes on the income of employees alone and not any other supporting industry

Best by the country as a whole or one particular industry? Free trade gives us far more jobs than it takes away. Look what happened after NAFTA.

NAFTA is a trade agreement, give me an example where we compete with third world countries industries and can beat their price, I agree there is a short upside to lower prices.
We will not mention lead base paint, melamine in the protein powder, just price
Also please answer what happened to America post, Thanks

We don’t have to compete with them in any particular industry. They are third world contries for a reason. We can focus on what others cannot do. Comparative advantage.

copy and paste:

U.S. employment increased over the period of 1993-2007 from 110.8 million people to 137.6 million people, a 24 percent increase.[1] Specifically within NAFTA?s first five years of existence, 709,988 jobs (140,000 annually), were created domestically.[2]

Proponents point out that had there been any significant negative impact on the labor force because of NAFTA, it would have been evident in the initial years. Yet, the mid to late nineties was one of the United States? biggest periods of economic growth.

Classical macroeconomic theory stipulates that when a country is experiencing economic growth (i.e. increase in GDP or GDP per capita), then there will also be an increase in the participation of the labor force.[3] Thus, because trade liberalization ultimately contributes to increases in GDP, it in effect, helps to bring the rate of unemployment down in a country.

The U.S. experienced a 48% increase in real GDP from 1993-2005. The unemployment rate over this period was an average of only 5.1%, compared to 7.1% from 1982-1993, before NAFTA was implemented.[2]

Proponents reject the claims of some that the free trade agreement is destroying the manufacturing industry and causing displacement of workers in that industry. In the period of 1981-1995, the years from ?93-?95 saw the highest rate of job loss, even during this period of great expansion.[4]

However, the rate of job loss due to plant closings, a typical argument against NAFTA, showed little deviation from previous periods.[4] The percentage of workers in the manufacturing industry with job loss actually decreased from 13.8 % in 1991-1993, pre-NAFTA years, to 11.8% in the years from 1993-1995.

Also, US industrial production, in which manufacturing makes up 78%, saw an increase of 49% from 1993-2005. The period prior to NAFTA, 1982-1993, only saw a 28% increase.[2] In fact, according to NAM, National Association of Manufacturers, NAFTA has only been responsible for 10% of the manufactured goods trade deficit, something opponents criticize the agreement for helping to foment.[5]

In the manufacturing sector, NAFTA yielded 43% of US manufacturing export growth and only 28% of import growth.

The most direct measurement of the impact of trade agreements on employment is the number of jobs supported by exports.[6] It is estimated that 8500 manufacturing jobs are supported by every $1 billion in US exports.[2] Because $12 billion of average annual gains in exports were created by expansion of North American trade, more than 100,000 additional US jobs were created.[2]

More importantly, it has been noted that in export-oriented industries where some of the lost manufacturing jobs go, wages are 13-16 percent higher than the national average.[2]

Others agree with the notion that there has been an increase in net jobs due to NAFTA?s implementation, but believe that these net gains are coming at the price of worker?s wages.[citation needed] That is, high-paying manufacturing jobs are being lost and replaced by lower paying jobs and is causing wage deflation in certain sectors.

However, during the Clinton administration, the sources of new job creation were in relatively high paid sectors and industries.[7] The fall in median wages, which are often associated with the middle class factory workers, stagnated because the inflation-adjusted pay rates for existing jobs fell, not because newer jobs that replaced manufacturing jobs were low-paying ones.[citation needed]

[/quote]

Personally do not understand how an American company selling it?s product in America does not have to compete with all the third world companies selling their products in America, please explain
The cut and paste part, I fail to see relevance, Also please answer what happened to America.
You seemed to get caught in rhetoric that does not pertain to any post. Why do you not just answer the questions rather than try to seem so wise.

187

pitbull, they do have to compete which forces them to be as efficient as possible and forces them to keep the quality high so that they have a competitive advantage. They also have lower transport costs, telecomms costs and theoretically should have better management infrastructure than a third world company.

188

[quote]pittbulll wrote:
orion wrote:
pittbulll wrote:
orion wrote:
pittbulll wrote:
orion wrote:
pittbulll wrote:
Cheaper

First of all, American steel mills got raped by European steel mills who probably have to deal with more laws than American companies.

Then, the liberal idea of free trade first opposed corn tariffs in England that had the same effects as any other tariff, they made bread expensive, hurt the poor people and made a few landlords rich, so no, the idea of free trade and classic liberalism always was to help the little guy.

That the little guy usually is too shortsighted to get this and votes for the very restrictions that cost him is a tragedy and enough to make any libertarian entrepreneur just a tad cynical.

So you do not think to be in the American Market that you should have to play by the American Rules. There is some truth about the European market dominating, but the European market had free health care and several had big subsidies from their country

There was also a lot of steel coming out of China, Thailand and other Asian countries
America could have given the steel industry tax breaks to bring their processes out of the dark ages. You can not disable a large area of American industry, for any reason, and tell me it is good for America.

Reagan job was to do the best by the country, not do the best by the market. Just think of the lost taxes on the income of employees alone and not any other supporting industry

[/quote]

You do know why the US steel industry was in trouble, right?

Because it was protected for far too long before the Reagan era.- You are proposing that the same protective measures that made them fat and lazy in the first place could have cured their problem.

And no, you could not have helped them with tax money, because you are a WTO member.

Finally, “free” health care is to a very large degree borne by European companies in the form of high wages, so that is not exactly a competitive advantage.

189

[quote]dhickey wrote:
vroom wrote:
As for the benefits of free trade, from the point of view of economic theory there is no doubt at all.

However, large economic shifts, as we are living through now, cause a lot of turmoil and ruin a lot of dreams.

Changes, such as establishing free trade, does not have to be done so quickly that companies do not have time to adjust and generate jobs in new areas. There is an inertia… the economy is not as simple as an economic model.

I’m tired of listening to ivory tower economic theory and just glossing over the human effect of such massive changes.

I guess as long as you and/or your family still hold a good job, the rest of the world can go fuck itself, right?

You keep making claims about economic “shifts” causing damage. Please show us one instance of “shifting” to free trade having any ill effect on any economy in history.[/quote]

Is this some sort of attempt to disaggregate the so-called Washington Consensus into its component parts and then claim that trade should be separate from the macro and financial advice given? What are you trying to say here?

I can’t imagine you’re arguing that no country experienced hardships or damage in the 1980s and 90s due to IMF/Bank conditionality…a part of which was, of course, trade liberalization. The general belief among Bank economists that I’ve spoken to, or heard speak, is somewhat similar to what vroom is arguing here; namely that trade liberalization and other liberalizing policies are both necessary and should be timed and sequenced so as not to “shock” an economy (or political economy) too greatly. What good is it to push for trade liberalization with an administration if by doing so that administration completely loses power?

(PS, if you’ve no idea what I’m talking about, don’t bother answering, just look up “Washington Consensus” and spend a few hours learning about the effects of their policies. )

190

[quote]orion wrote:
pittbulll wrote:
orion wrote:
pittbulll wrote:
orion wrote:
pittbulll wrote:
orion wrote:
pittbulll wrote:
Cheaper

You do know why the US steel industry was in trouble, right?

Because it was protected for far too long before the Reagan era.- You are proposing that the same protective measures that made them fat and lazy in the first place could have cured their problem.

And no, you could not have helped them with tax money, because you are a WTO member.

Finally, “free” health care is to a very large degree borne by European companies in the form of high wages, so that is not exactly a competitive advantage.
[/quote]

I am not suggesting that we give America exclusive rights to any manufacturing.
Steel has many different grades back in the 70?s you could get hot rolled steel for $90 a ton , a grade that is rebar quality . Then you could get different alloys that would sell for up to $2500 a ton, the likes of chrome moly, Europe was producing the upper end steel and Viet Nam and the likes were working the bottom end

As far as being able to give tax incentives, to modernize steel productions would have been a stoke of genius we and everybody subsidies everything from food to energy
I am sure that it washes out with higher taxes for free medical, so maybe no big advantage. All I am saying that if someone plays in the American market they should have to play by American rules.

I personally think a good example of some one playing in the American Markey is Toyota and Honda; both make a superior product, treat their employees as well or better than American companies. I can not say the same for some Chinese sweat shop that makes toys with lead base paints and employs slave labor for their product that sells on the American market in some cases as much as American products.

191

[quote]pittbulll wrote:
Personally do not understand how an American company selling it?s product in America does not have to compete with all the third world companies selling their products in America, please explain
[/quote]

Does a hockey player compete with a tennis player? The point is that we don’t have to make the same products. Why on earth would we? There are lots of products we don’t have to make. That is the point of free trade and comparitive advantage.

I don’t what you are talking about here. I thought the cut and paste illustrated quite well what happened to America. Did you miss the part about increase jobs and wealth?

I don’t know how a cut and paste of someone else’s information can come of as being “wise”. I just did a simple search and posted facts, not rhetoric.

192

[quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:
dhickey wrote:
vroom wrote:
As for the benefits of free trade, from the point of view of economic theory there is no doubt at all.

However, large economic shifts, as we are living through now, cause a lot of turmoil and ruin a lot of dreams.

Changes, such as establishing free trade, does not have to be done so quickly that companies do not have time to adjust and generate jobs in new areas. There is an inertia… the economy is not as simple as an economic model.

I’m tired of listening to ivory tower economic theory and just glossing over the human effect of such massive changes.

I guess as long as you and/or your family still hold a good job, the rest of the world can go fuck itself, right?

You keep making claims about economic “shifts” causing damage. Please show us one instance of “shifting” to free trade having any ill effect on any economy in history.

Is this some sort of attempt to disaggregate the so-called Washington Consensus into its component parts and then claim that trade should be separate from the macro and financial advice given? What are you trying to say here?

I can’t imagine you’re arguing that no country experienced hardships or damage in the 1980s and 90s due to IMF/Bank conditionality…a part of which was, of course, trade liberalization.
[/quote]

“part of which” is the important part of this statement. How much of the cost can be attributed to trade liberalization?

Just becuase economists recognize and rightfully point out ill effects of a policy, doesn’t mean it is not a good policy. You have to also weigh the cost of selective or timed liberalization. If protectionism is costing us jobs and wealth, then taking longer to liberalize trade has to be costing us something. Is that cost greater or less then the cost of some short lived “shock”. What happened in the '80s is the cost. What happened after is benefit.

Also, anytime our gov’t “plans” something I have to cringe. Our biggest problem is having gov’t so involved in an otherwise free economy. Politics tend to trump any kind of economic cost/benefit. They can’t be trusted to “plan” anything. Do we really have to cite examples here?

Wait, are we talking about economic benefit or political benefit?

Ok, I’ve stopped chuckling for the moment. Why on god’s green earth would I care about the Washington Consensus? You have got to be kidding me. The treasury department, IMF, and World Bank? Come on. I am interested in economics, not politics thinly vailed in economics.

Fuck the treasury, world band, and IMF. You seriously want these guys “planning” what should be a free economy? This is protectionism at it’s best. Don’t let those pesky third world contries develop too fast. They might threaten some of our industries. Let’s just keep them poor and starving as long as we can. We’ll throw them a bone every once and awhile so it appears we are helping them along. We’ll decide how much they can develop.

What a fucking oppressive joke. Starve a few hundered or thousand in some far off land to protect one of our workers from not having to find another job, and maybe give up his ski boat. We also get the side benefit of having to pay more for goods and services, reducing the overall wealth and quality of life. Fucking brilliant from a political perspective.

You can find assesments of cost for any policy or action. That is economics. You also have to weigh that against the benefit or cost of doing something different. I prefer long term economic growth and freedom to politically planned policy intended, but often not successful, in limiting short term discomfort.

193

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

I am not suggesting that we give America exclusive rights to any manufacturing.
Steel has many different grades back in the 70?s you could get hot rolled steel for $90 a ton , a grade that is rebar quality . Then you could get different alloys that would sell for up to $2500 a ton, the likes of chrome moly, Europe was producing the upper end steel and Viet Nam and the likes were working the bottom end

As far as being able to give tax incentives, to modernize steel productions would have been a stoke of genius we and everybody subsidies everything from food to energy
I am sure that it washes out with higher taxes for free medical, so maybe no big advantage. All I am saying that if someone plays in the American market they should have to play by American rules.

I personally think a good example of some one playing in the American Markey is Toyota and Honda; both make a superior product, treat their employees as well or better than American companies. I can not say the same for some Chinese sweat shop that makes toys with lead base paints and employs slave labor for their product that sells on the American market in some cases as much as American products.

[/quote]
This is all completely irrational and arbitrary. This is picking and chosing what industries tax payers are forced to subsidized for economic benefit you can’t rationalize.

This is the beauty of the free market. No idividual would be making decisions to plan economies for everybody else. If individuals want to support any american industry, despite higher prices, they can and do. Why do you get to decide what industries I support? It’s my money and I should be able to buy goods from anyone, anywhere in the world.

194

[quote]dhickey wrote:
pittbulll wrote:
Personally do not understand how an American company selling it?s product in America does not have to compete with all the third world companies selling their products in America, please explain

Does a hockey player compete with a tennis player? The point is that we don’t have to make the same products. Why on earth would we? There are lots of products we don’t have to make. That is the point of free trade and comparitive advantage.

The cut and paste part, I fail to see relevance, Also please answer what happened to America.
You seemed to get caught in rhetoric that does not pertain to any post. Why do you not just answer the questions rather than try to seem so wise.

I don’t what you are talking about here. I thought the cut and paste illustrated quite well what happened to America. Did you miss the part about increase jobs and wealth?

I don’t know how a cut and paste of someone else’s information can come of as being “wise”. I just did a simple search and posted facts, not rhetoric.
[/quote]

I think you hockey player using tennis balls make my point. Why do speak in analogies. Why do you not ever answer a question? The question is if American companies are making cars and Chinese companies are making cars with slave labor, using inferior, and are totally fucking up the environment, why would we allow them to drive down the price of American Cars. What benefit can America get from losing money to unfair completion for American Dollars?

195

[quote]dhickey wrote:
pittbulll wrote:

I am not suggesting that we give America exclusive rights to any manufacturing.
Steel has many different grades back in the 70?s you could get hot rolled steel for $90 a ton , a grade that is rebar quality . Then you could get different alloys that would sell for up to $2500 a ton, the likes of chrome moly, Europe was producing the upper end steel and Viet Nam and the likes were working the bottom end

As far as being able to give tax incentives, to modernize steel productions would have been a stoke of genius we and everybody subsidies everything from food to energy
I am sure that it washes out with higher taxes for free medical, so maybe no big advantage. All I am saying that if someone plays in the American market they should have to play by American rules.

I personally think a good example of some one playing in the American Markey is Toyota and Honda; both make a superior product, treat their employees as well or better than American companies. I can not say the same for some Chinese sweat shop that makes toys with lead base paints and employs slave labor for their product that sells on the American market in some cases as much as American products.

This is all completely irrational and arbitrary. This is picking and chosing what industries tax payers are forced to subsidized for economic benefit you can’t rationalize.

This is the beauty of the free market. No idividual would be making decisions to plan economies for everybody else. If individuals want to support any american industry, despite higher prices, they can and do. Why do you get to decide what industries I support? It’s my money and I should be able to buy goods from anyone, anywhere in the world.
[/quote]

To avoid your rhetoric, how is it totally irrational?

196

[quote]pittbulll wrote:
dhickey wrote:
pittbulll wrote:
Personally do not understand how an American company selling it?s product in America does not have to compete with all the third world companies selling their products in America, please explain

Does a hockey player compete with a tennis player? The point is that we don’t have to make the same products. Why on earth would we? There are lots of products we don’t have to make. That is the point of free trade and comparitive advantage.

The cut and paste part, I fail to see relevance, Also please answer what happened to America.
You seemed to get caught in rhetoric that does not pertain to any post. Why do you not just answer the questions rather than try to seem so wise.

I don’t what you are talking about here. I thought the cut and paste illustrated quite well what happened to America. Did you miss the part about increase jobs and wealth?

I don’t know how a cut and paste of someone else’s information can come of as being “wise”. I just did a simple search and posted facts, not rhetoric.

I think you hockey player using tennis balls make my point. Why do speak in analogies. Why do you not ever answer a question?

The question is if American companies are making cars and Chinese companies are making cars with slave labor, using inferior, and are totally fucking up the environment, why would we allow them to drive down the price of American Cars. What benefit can America get from losing money to unfair completion for American Dollars?
[/quote]

First. We are not losing money or dollars. Dollars have to be redeamed for american goods or services. Unless they are burning the dollars.

Second. Please define slave labor.

Third. Inferior what?

Fourth. Define fucking up the environment.

Fifth. We are alway better off with the cheapest products that meats our needs. I am going to make this very simple for you. Say I have $10 to spend. I can buy an american made sweater for $10. Or I can spend $5 on a chinese sweater and have $5 left over to buy a belt.

Now, we can protect the american sweater industry by putting a $5 tarrif on the chinese sweater. This would certainly protect the american sweater industry. It would put the belt industry out of business and I would only have a sweater, instead of a sweater and a belt.

If we define wealth by the goods and services that can be enjoyed, I am less wealthy and it has nothing to do with my wage.

Now do this on a large scale. industries out of business, and quality of life compromised for everyone. What is so hard to understand here?

197

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

To avoid your rhetoric, how is it totally irrational?
[/quote]

Becuase you can’t rationalize why we should protect the steel industry at the expense of countless others. You ask, that becuase we protect other industries, why not steel.

198

[quote]dhickey wrote:
pittbulll wrote:

To avoid your rhetoric, how is it totally irrational?

Becuase you can’t rationalize why we should protect the steel industry at the expense of countless others. You ask, that becuase we protect other industries, why not steel.[/quote]

I did not say protect, I said to put in a level playing field and a subsidy to get them there

199

[quote]pittbulll wrote:
dhickey wrote:
pittbulll wrote:

To avoid your rhetoric, how is it totally irrational?

Becuase you can’t rationalize why we should protect the steel industry at the expense of countless others. You ask, that becuase we protect other industries, why not steel.

I did not say protect, I said to put in a level playing field and a subsidy to get them there[/quote]

You kind of get that the very idea of comparative advantage means that there is no level playing field?

I am sorry, you cannot produce peaches in Alaska, and apparently you cannot produce steel in the US.

Too bad.

Build something else.

200

Before our industrial base vanishes, let’s employ all the people in ghettoes to conquer the 3rd world. The factories will hum, no more bums in the ghetto. We could then confiscate the wealth of the conquered nations to pay off our debt. If we conquer Venezuela, we could also return the oil company lands there to their rightful owners.

We’d also do a better job of running most of those shitholes (think Zimbabwe) and our former ghetto dwellers could be gainfully employed patrolling the streets of, say, Caracas (or Casablanca, just for Lixy).

What say you all? We could stay here and do what’s important, like helping the ladies pump up… ;>

201

[quote]orion wrote:
pittbulll wrote:
dhickey wrote:
pittbulll wrote:

To avoid your rhetoric, how is it totally irrational?

Becuase you can’t rationalize why we should protect the steel industry at the expense of countless others. You ask, that becuase we protect other industries, why not steel.

I did not say protect, I said to put in a level playing field and a subsidy to get them there

You kind of get that the very idea of comparative advantage means that there is no level playing field?

I am sorry, you cannot produce peaches in Alaska, and apparently you cannot produce steel in the US.

Too bad.

Build something else.

[/quote]

Why can’t you produce steel in America, I could . If it is true that there is no level playing field, then let?s put the field to our advantage

202

[quote]pittbulll wrote:
orion wrote:
pittbulll wrote:
dhickey wrote:
pittbulll wrote:

To avoid your rhetoric, how is it totally irrational?

Becuase you can’t rationalize why we should protect the steel industry at the expense of countless others. You ask, that becuase we protect other industries, why not steel.

I did not say protect, I said to put in a level playing field and a subsidy to get them there

You kind of get that the very idea of comparative advantage means that there is no level playing field?

I am sorry, you cannot produce peaches in Alaska, and apparently you cannot produce steel in the US.

Too bad.

Build something else.

Why can’t you produce steel in America, I could . If it is true that there is no level playing field, then let?s put the field to our advantage

[/quote]

how? by sacrificing other industries?

203

[quote]pittbulll wrote:
orion wrote:
pittbulll wrote:
dhickey wrote:
pittbulll wrote:

To avoid your rhetoric, how is it totally irrational?

Becuase you can’t rationalize why we should protect the steel industry at the expense of countless others. You ask, that becuase we protect other industries, why not steel.

I did not say protect, I said to put in a level playing field and a subsidy to get them there

You kind of get that the very idea of comparative advantage means that there is no level playing field?

I am sorry, you cannot produce peaches in Alaska, and apparently you cannot produce steel in the US.

Too bad.

Build something else.

Why can’t you produce steel in America, I could . If it is true that there is no level playing field, then let?s put the field to our advantage

[/quote]

You cannot do that without destroying other industries.

Find out what you can build and build it.

204

[quote]orion wrote:
pittbulll wrote:
orion wrote:
pittbulll wrote:
dhickey wrote:
pittbulll wrote:

To avoid your rhetoric, how is it totally irrational?

Becuase you can’t rationalize why we should protect the steel industry at the expense of countless others. You ask, that becuase we protect other industries, why not steel.

I did not say protect, I said to put in a level playing field and a subsidy to get them there

You kind of get that the very idea of comparative advantage means that there is no level playing field?

I am sorry, you cannot produce peaches in Alaska, and apparently you cannot produce steel in the US.

Too bad.

Build something else.

Why can’t you produce steel in America, I could . If it is true that there is no level playing field, then let?s put the field to our advantage

You cannot do that without destroying other industries.

Find out what you can build and build it.
[/quote]

What industries and how? I could see a possible price increase but destroy? We will have to be creative or we will have a large portion of what used to be called the Steel valley as having another generation of unemployed people. Your response seems too broad.