Ronald Reagan on Capitalism and Socialism

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
81

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

I asked you what good happened to America because Reagan crushed a industry that was profitable , sustained hundreds of thousands of people well above poverty level that are now unemployed , tapping our social programs . How did it do America any good to lose billions of dollars in tax revenue? Please educate me. [/quote]

The money that was spent on expensive steel was saved and used to build something else.

Obviously it was spent on something people wanted more, or else they would have spent it on steel.

More people got what they wanted that way, which is better.

[/quote]
Which people got what?[/quote]

Everyone buying something that contained the cheaper foreign steel saved money.

Every company no longer forced to buy more expensive steel made more profit.

Every dollare saved on steel could be used to buy something else.

You want me to post billions of transactions?

82

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

What inferior product?

The difference between steel and buggies is obvious to most of us.

Go to Youngstown Ohio and tell me there was no bomb dropped.

And you still have not answered my question. To have conversation you ask questions I answer them, and then I ask you questions and you answer them .All I can figure is you do not have an answer or you would quit acting like an educated fool, your economic theories are not difficult to understand
[/quote]

Well obviously their steel was inferior in some way shape or form because consumers wanted something else. Otherwise they would have continued to buy it.

Then, if they are so easy to understand, why do you fail to grasp them?

The mere idea that horse buggies are somehow fundamentally different from steel is a good indicator that you do not get them, because in these cases they are really not.

Also, I gave you my answer, letting me repeat it will not change it.
[/quote]

I understand YOUR THERORY just fine, I would be surprised that YOUR THERORY is all they teach in Economics; I would say the THERORY you keep hammering is only a sliver of the total picture

I have to think you are mentally challenged, how you derive that America made inferior steel is uninformed and inaccurate
[/quote]

No it is not, because I do not substitute my judgement of what constitues “quality” for that of the consumers.

If the Amercian producers had been able to produce the “quality” the consumers wanted, they would have bought it.

They havent, so that steel was inferior.

They did not want it.

Whether that is because it did not live up to the physical parameters they needed for their products or wether they did and simply were more expensive, or whether they could not produce certain alloys, I dont care.

All I know is that consumers cared for specific steel products that others could produce better.

Seen that way, American steel was inferior.

You can insist on the “superior quality” of your products all day long, in the end the consumer still decides what “quality” he wants in a product.

83

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]tGunslinger wrote:
Pittbull, you are confusing the cause of the decline in U.S. steel with the federal government’s reaction to that cause.

The cause was an evolving international steel industry that began producing comparable steel for a much cheaper price than U.S. steel.

From your posts, I think that your opinion is that protectionist policies should have been put in place to prevent international steel from competing fairly with U.S. steel. But as others have already discussed, protectionist policies are foolish because they increase prices and decrease consumption for everybody else.

So for that, the federal government (“Reagan”) made the correct decision. But that doesn’t mean that the federal government’s (“Reagan’s”) reaction to this new globalized steel industry was perfect.

Instead of protectionist policies, the federal government (“Reagan”) should have loosened labor and environmental regulations to give U.S. steel an opportunity to compete with international steel. Obviously they did not, and U.S. steel was severely damaged for it.

Globalization of industry, whether steel or oil or auto manufacturing or robotics or q-tips, is a phenomenon that a government CANNOT prevent or undo. Once international steel became competitive with U.S. steel, the status quo of the U.S. steel industry (high profits, high wages, lots of work, etc.) was permanently destroyed and nothing and no-one could ever bring it back without harming many other industries.

The federal government failed not by refusing to pursue protectionism, but by refusing to allow U.S. steel to compete on the same terms as international steel. But even if they had done so, steel-workers would have found themselves in a harder, more competitive, and less lucrative industry than before.[/quote]

The Steel from third world companies has always been cheaper than Steel produced in civilization; I have tried to find what steel from Viet Nam cost compared to U.S. steel in the early eighties.

I do not see my posts as protection from steel producers that comply with air pollution standards and producers that pay a wage that is livable. I heard even in the nineties Viet Nam was paying labor pennies an hour. I call that unfair completion

Reaganâ??s job was not to meet some hypothetical standard; his job was to look out for Americaâ??s best interest. Reagan did not do that by casting many large and small Cities and States in to a recession that has lasted now over a quarter of a century

I do understand Your THERORY and I do consider it part of the way an economy, works
Your theory is half of a healthy economy, that half is the half that is good for the consumer where customers can buy cheap goods. But America needs to bolster the half that allows the consumer to consume. For that half we need good paying jobs. And you can not do that by exporting all of our money to buy merchandise. You need to keep the money in America to pay the workers to produce. That is the other half

I agree the Unions needed to be curtailed, but as I said Reagan threw the baby out with the bath water. He did a huge disservice to America creating vast areas with generations of young men that have no hope of finding a job that could support a family

I do not care what you say about they could go to school, move out of the area. But America has a limited number of jobs and if one of them gets a job some else loses a job.
[/quote]

You must have read about Keynesian Economics.

Pennies an hour in Vietnam may be a livable wage, it isn’t here because of what they have done to our money. In a real free market wages, prices, and costs go down. Not up, in a free market when people continue to become productive and become more efficient prices go down not up.

84

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

Your comment about expensive steel, no one was subsidizing the Steel industry, America was probably paying no more for steel than could be bought on the open market. Reagan was a staunch anti union advocate and had no problem throwing the baby out with the bath water, Hence my opinion. I do not think it would take much imagination to call Ronald Reagan an accidental TRAITOR.

For you to make the statement that the Steel industry was living on some one�??�??�?�¢??s back requires proof. And an intelligent President would weigh the cost of destroying a (LARGE < HEALTHY) industry to the small benefit of a few people.

Your comment about a job or hobby is idiocy

Where is all that cheap steel that was created by killing a viable Steel industry, Now that we do not make our own steel , we pay what ever the market demands , As far as supply and demand what happens when you do away with the dominant supply ? The Demand goes up along with price.[/quote]

If they produced steel as cheaply as anyone else, why did they need tariffs and quotas and whatnot and why did they collapse once they are removed?

Obviously they were not producing at competitive prices or else they would not have needed BIG Government from all the mean meanies who dared to sell better quality at lower prices.

Therefore, all Americans were forced to pay more for steel than they really had too, they were forced to subsidize the steel industry.

Since many off the jobs in the steel industry would not have had a job had it not been for the tariffs and whatnot, they were only having a job because other people were forced at gunpoint to buy an inferior product.

You are right that that is even worse than a hobby, because no stamp collector ever sent a government agent to make me pay for his rather unproductive endeavours.

Unfortunately, and this is were I lose you because you refuse to let go of stronrg emotions and replace them with detached clarity that comes with economic education, it is inevitable that a government intervention of this nature does more harm than good because it drags us away from the Pareto optimum.

Everytime a government intervenes it takes us one step further away from the best of all possible worlds and that is not my opinion but flows directly from the concept of economic utility.

You see, people like me do not necessarily want to “hurt the little guy”, in fact we want to stop people like you to really hurt him in the name of helping him and then blame the “free market” for your mistakes and heap even more regulations on the economy, hurting him even further.

Who do you think will suffer most when SS breaks down?

The proverbial little guy who has put his trust in politicians who promised him the sky is going to be thoroughly fucked.

[/quote]

You still refuse to answer my question. What good did Reagan do by decimating the Steel Industry? Answer that question and I will go down your road of reasoning.[/quote]

In American (and the world) jobs and companies are created through savings (loans, bonds, start up money, et cetera). So, with tariffs (higher price equals higher prices), subsidies (inefficient businesses using savings that could work at better places), and quotas (less supply raises prices) it props up a few select companies that are as well forced to pay higher wages because of unions (the more money they have to pay means that marginal return and marginal cost is met sooner, which means less workers).

Let’s start, when Reagan removed the tariffs for imports it allowed more supply, to rise which lowered prices, to come into the country allowing people to save more money (which if you remember savings = loans, bonds, start up money = more business = more jobs). When he removed the steel subsidies it lowered taxes, which allowed others to save more money (read: create more businesses and jobs). When Reagan removed the quotas it would allow more supply to meet demand, which would lower prices and allow businesses and consumers to save more money (read: create more businesses and jobs).

So when all three, tariffs subsidies and quotas, were removed it allowed businesses and consumers to save more money which when people save money it creates or allows more business and jobs to be formed. It has a terrible but necessary side effect though, it exposes the weaknesses of businesses and workers. So if a worker’s marginal return does not meet their marginal cost then they either have to take a pay cut (pay cut’s allow for more workers to receive a job) or become more efficient or (unfortunate but needed) fired and find a job that they their marginal return can cover their marginal cost. When a company cannot cover costs, lack of efficiency or it cost too much to meet market price, then it has to go bankrupt. If demand is not met when the company leaves the market than there will be room for someone to fill their spot, however if the market is over-saturated (costs are more than revenue) than no one will fill that spot and likely they will be cost cutting or other companies go bankrupt because they as well cannot cover costs.

[/quote]

I understand your Theory, Where did this benefit happen, what state? What factories? What Industry? How much money was saved? How much tax revenue was generated by all this start increase of production products? Where did this big plus happen to counter the big negative effects of Ronald Reagan?

If you are a casual observer like myself Americaâ??s production of goods has gone down in flames, you may attribute it to Reagan and the misguided theories of some academic scholars with an agenda

So please give me an answer that is not some oneâ??s opinion , give me facts please.
[/quote]

The benefit happened to the companies who used steel in production, as well as their customers. How are we supposed to calculate one thing in an economy that is larger than the industry? You want to know how much we saved, calculate the difference between costs when using protected American steel and foreign steel.

Reagan did much harm, but that does not mean we should nullify something he did good because it didn’t cover all that he did bad.

Reagan should have had the laws on labor unions repealed. He should have deregulated the environmental regulations. There is a lot in American that does not make us competitive with foreign countries, however that does not mean we should put up protectionist laws. We should compete.

85

It does not take much imagination to hang this label on Reagan, If it would have been Obama that did this the so called RIGHT would have had the label traitor hung on him for sure .

I know how all the free market people will demagogue a situation by not answering a question. I have asked the question how Ronald Reagan did America any GOOD by killing the steel industry, I contend he did America irreparable harm and should have been hung.

86

JEATON got it a couple pages ago. Reagan, if anything, helped to put the industry out of its misery. If Reagan never existed, the industry, like most productive industry in the US would have eventually been killed by union demands, regulation, taxation, and environmental restrictions (See: glass industry, coal industry, textile industry, logging industry, paper industry, etc, etc, ad infinitum).

Here’s a good little article (book review) from 1988:

And the Wolf Finally Came: The Decline of the American Steel Industry.
…

As this marvelous passage suggests, steel in the old days wasn’t simply an industry. It was an entire culture, with its own richly embellished social structure. In this book Hoerr shows how this all-American social system produced an utterly disastrous outcome-in which workers didn’t work, managers didn’t manage, and an entire industry slid year by year toward disaster.
…

Worst of all, says Hoerr, was the poisonous relationship that developed between workers and management, especially at the industry’s largest company, U.S. Steel. He quotes one steelworker explaining the decline in m"In the 1950s, it was a pleasant place to work. . . .The people in the personnel office spent their lives there and knew workers personally." Then, in the 1960s, “the company brought in college grads as supervisors and sometimes paid them more than the general foremen who had come up the old way. This helped destroy working relationships. In the early 1970s, they began hiring attorneys to run personnel services. Most of them used it as a stepping stone and became tough bastards. ‘If you want something, arbitrate!’ they told us.”

In this climate of bitterness and suspicion, workers lost any remaining concern for the efficiency of the enterprise. Recalling his own summer jobs in the mills as a young man, Hoerr notes that “on the night turn, 11 p. m. to 7 a.m. , more people may have been sleeping in National Tube than in all the hotels of McKeesport. It was a mark of esteem, the ‘macho’ thing of the day, to brag about sleeping on company time.”

The message of this book (other than the obvious point that wages shouldn’t rise faster than productivity) is that the steel industry might have remained competitive if union and management had adopted the sort of cooperative worker-management relationships common in Japan.

Hoerr may also be understating the economic benefits of tough, cost-cutting management. U.S. Steel’s approach to labor relations may be neanderthal, but the company (and its workforce) will gain significant long-run benefits from management’s effort in the 1980s to regain control of its plants. Its steel work force has fallen from more than 100,000 in 1980 to less than 20,000 this year. Meanwhile, productivity has increased so sharply that it now takes just 3.8 man-hours per ton of steel shipped, compared to 10.8 man-hours in 1983.

The sad truth is that by the 1980s it may have been too late for steel to avoid catastrophic cutbacks like those seen at U.S. Steel. With the union’s help, Big Steel got enough protection to delay the day of reckoning. But as Hoerr says in his title"the wolf finally came."

87

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

It does not take much imagination to hang this label on Reagan, If it would have been Obama that did this the so called RIGHT would have had the label traitor hung on him for sure .

I know how all the free market people will demagogue a situation by not answering a question. I have asked the question how Ronald Reagan did America any GOOD by killing the steel industry, I contend he did America irreparable harm and should have been hung.[/quote]

You got basically the same answer from around 5 different people.

I get what you do not get, which is why the suggested literature adressed this.

You not being able to grasp the answer and not taking any steps to understand the “not that difficult theory” does not really equal “not getting an answer” you poor, little misunderstood victim you.

Also, while making highly irrational apperals to emotion like the one you posted above, make sure to include children.

88

Here, lots and lots of numbers, and I can tell you right now that they do not look good.

http://www.freetrade.org/pubs/speeches/ct-dg022599.html

edited

89

[quote]orion wrote:
You got basically the same answer from around 5 different people.
[/quote]

Subtract one. I’m jumping ship and taking the emotional side.

Here’s my position:

“OMG! Ronild RayGun izz teh evilz!11!!!111”

90

I am asking for some one to show me that cars sold cheaper in 1986 or refrigerators were fifty cents cheaper, I understand you theory I am asking to show me proof your theory works. If you can not I contend your theory is a bunch of shit.

91

[quote]orion wrote:

Here, lots and lots of numbers, and I can tell you right now that they do not look good.

http://www.freetrade.org/pubs/speeches/ct-dg022599.html

edited[/quote]

Second, falling employment in the steel industry is nothing new. Since 1980, the domestic steel industry has shed two-thirds of its production workers. Most of the layoffs in the steel industry have not been caused by imports, but by rising productivity within the industry. In 1980, a ton of domestically produced steel required 10.1 man-hours to produce; today the industry average is 3.9 man-hours. With productivity rising faster than domestic demand, the industry has required fewer workers. The resulting decline in employment has been relentless, with the number of employed steelworkers falling in 15 of the last 18 years. Employment has moved steadily downward whether imports have been rising or falling as a share of domestic supply. For example, imports as a percent of new supply (shipments plus imports) fell from a peak of 26.2 percent in 1984 to a low of 16.7 percent in 1991. Yet during that same period, employment in the steel industry fell by more than 70,000. (See the attached graph.)

this para graph states your therory , I am asking for proof . There should be a boat load of proof 1985 is when your proof should be evident. I can show you big harm show me a little good

Raising barriers against steel imports will impose a real cost on the American economy. Millions of American workers and tens of millions of American consumers will be made worse off so that the domestic steel industry can enjoy temporary benefits. Consumers will pay more than they would otherwise for products made from steel, such as household appliances, trucks, and cars. (The average five-passenger sedan contains $700 worth of steel.) Artificially propping up the domestic cost of steel will only raise the cost of final products to U.S. consumers. If protectionist measures succeed in raising the average price of steel mill products by $50 a ton, Americans will pay the equivalent of a $6 billion tax on the more than 120 million tons of steel they consume each year.

92

And don’t forget, if you’re a really empathetic liberal like Pittbulll, then Reagan deserved to be shot by Hinckley.

And don’t forget the smiley-face, being an empathetic liberal who of course loves diversity of ideas and is so “tolerant.”

93

This guy really needs to be tied to a chair and made watch Free To Chose over and over. I bought that for my kids last school year and they’ve had so much fun with their teachers, let alone fellow students. When they were 14 years old…

94

http://www.fff.org/freedom/fd0209d.asp

In early 1984, when the U.S. steel industry launched another deluge of unfair trade cases against imports, prices for cold-rolled sheet steel in the United States were nearly 40 percent higher than prices in other markets . Reagan announced on September 18, 1984, that he had decided that â??import relief is not in the national economic interestâ?? and that â??we must do all we can to avoid protectionism, to keep our market open to free and fair competition, and to provide certainty of access for our trading partners.â??

…

Steel trade restrictions bushwhacked American industry. International Trade Commission chairman Paula Stern noted,

â??Inflated U.S. steel prices were an important factor in the erosion of U.S. manufacturing preeminence and employment from the 1960s to the mid 1980s.â??

The Institute for International Economics estimated that steel quotas cost U.S. consumers $6.8 billion a year. Steel shortages had had even more devastating impacts on American manufacturers than higher steel prices.

Even General Motors was hurt by quotas: GM Vice President James D. Johnston complained to the White House that steel shortages â??have jeopardized vehicle assembly at the company.â??

Steel quotas destroyed far more jobs than they saved. Caterpillar led the fight against the extension of steel quotas in 1989 with buttons proclaiming, â??Steel VRAs Steal Jobs.â?? Hans Mueller, professor of economics at Middle Tennessee State University, estimated that the quotas resulted in 13 jobs lost in steel-using industries for each steel-workerâ??s job saved.

The Institute for International Economics estimated that quotas were costing the equivalent of $750,000 a year for each steel job â??saved.â?? A 1984 Federal Trade Commission study estimated that steel quotas cost the U.S. economy $25 for each additional dollar of profit of American steel producers.

95

Yes, but to a good leftist, it makes sense to, for example, limit railroad trains to say 20 cars each so as to save the jobs of railroad workers, as of course more workers are needed for say 5 trains pulling a total of 100 cars than for one train pulling 100 cars.

Figuring how many other jobs are lost as a result and figuring the resulting overall economic losses as a consequence of such government regulation would hurt their pointy little heads and just isn’t bothered with. All they can think about is how their empathy and show of government force helps the railroad workers and pleases the union.

96

[quote]orion wrote:
http://www.fff.org/freedom/fd0209d.asp

In early 1984, when the U.S. steel industry launched another deluge of unfair trade cases against imports, prices for cold-rolled sheet steel in the United States were nearly 40 percent higher than prices in other markets . Reagan announced on September 18, 1984, that he had decided that �¢??import relief is not in the national economic interest�¢?? and that �¢??we must do all we can to avoid protectionism, to keep our market open to free and fair competition, and to provide certainty of access for our trading partners.�¢??

…

Steel trade restrictions bushwhacked American industry. International Trade Commission chairman Paula Stern noted,

�¢??Inflated U.S. steel prices were an important factor in the erosion of U.S. manufacturing preeminence and employment from the 1960s to the mid 1980s.�¢??

The Institute for International Economics estimated that steel quotas cost U.S. consumers $6.8 billion a year. Steel shortages had had even more devastating impacts on American manufacturers than higher steel prices.

Even General Motors was hurt by quotas: GM Vice President James D. Johnston complained to the White House that steel shortages �¢??have jeopardized vehicle assembly at the company.�¢??

Steel quotas destroyed far more jobs than they saved. Caterpillar led the fight against the extension of steel quotas in 1989 with buttons proclaiming, �¢??Steel VRAs Steal Jobs.�¢?? Hans Mueller, professor of economics at Middle Tennessee State University, estimated that the quotas resulted in 13 jobs lost in steel-using industries for each steel-worker�¢??s job saved.

The Institute for International Economics estimated that quotas were costing the equivalent of $750,000 a year for each steel job �¢??saved.�¢?? A 1984 Federal Trade Commission study estimated that steel quotas cost the U.S. economy $25 for each additional dollar of profit of American steel producers. [/quote]

Orion, I take back every bad thing I thought about you, Out of curiosity, after Reagan killed the steel industry, did Caterpillar drop any of its prices? Caterpillar has to be the best example I am serious I concede Caterpillar, I am sure got a raw deal

I can tell you one thing the lack of the steel industry costs America way more than $6.8 billion. Add all the welfare, all the taxes those people and their companies would have paid in taxes. You do the math. I bet it cost Youngstown Ohio more than that.

That $25 dollars cost for every dollar profit, had to be quite substantial, where is that money now. Steel profits were more than 140 million dollars for one quarter at U.S.steel that is one company, 25 time 140 million is what 3.5 billion savings for one quarter for one company. Where did all that money go…? I would be curios how they tabulated their numbers. I would bet there is a healthy dose of propaganda in that statement

97

[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
Yes, but to a good leftist, it makes sense to, for example, limit railroad trains to say 20 cars each so as to save the jobs of railroad workers, as of course more workers are needed for say 5 trains pulling a total of 100 cars than for one train pulling 100 cars.

Figuring how many other jobs are lost as a result and figuring the resulting overall economic losses as a consequence of such government regulation would hurt their pointy little heads and just isn’t bothered with. All they can think about is how their empathy and show of government force helps the railroad workers and pleases the union.[/quote]

Damned liberals :slight_smile:

98

[quote]tom63 wrote:
This guy really needs to be tied to a chair and made watch Free To Chose over and over. I bought that for my kids last school year and they’ve had so much fun with their teachers, let alone fellow students. When they were 14 years old…[/quote]

I will try to watch it, only once though :slight_smile:

99

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:
http://www.fff.org/freedom/fd0209d.asp

In early 1984, when the U.S. steel industry launched another deluge of unfair trade cases against imports, prices for cold-rolled sheet steel in the United States were nearly 40 percent higher than prices in other markets . Reagan announced on September 18, 1984, that he had decided that �??�?�¢??import relief is not in the national economic interest�??�?�¢?? and that �??�?�¢??we must do all we can to avoid protectionism, to keep our market open to free and fair competition, and to provide certainty of access for our trading partners.�??�?�¢??

…

Steel trade restrictions bushwhacked American industry. International Trade Commission chairman Paula Stern noted,

�??�?�¢??Inflated U.S. steel prices were an important factor in the erosion of U.S. manufacturing preeminence and employment from the 1960s to the mid 1980s.�??�?�¢??

The Institute for International Economics estimated that steel quotas cost U.S. consumers $6.8 billion a year. Steel shortages had had even more devastating impacts on American manufacturers than higher steel prices.

Even General Motors was hurt by quotas: GM Vice President James D. Johnston complained to the White House that steel shortages �??�?�¢??have jeopardized vehicle assembly at the company.�??�?�¢??

Steel quotas destroyed far more jobs than they saved. Caterpillar led the fight against the extension of steel quotas in 1989 with buttons proclaiming, �??�?�¢??Steel VRAs Steal Jobs.�??�?�¢?? Hans Mueller, professor of economics at Middle Tennessee State University, estimated that the quotas resulted in 13 jobs lost in steel-using industries for each steel-worker�??�?�¢??s job saved.

The Institute for International Economics estimated that quotas were costing the equivalent of $750,000 a year for each steel job �??�?�¢??saved.�??�?�¢?? A 1984 Federal Trade Commission study estimated that steel quotas cost the U.S. economy $25 for each additional dollar of profit of American steel producers. [/quote]

Orion, I take back every bad thing I thought about you, Out of curiosity, after Reagan killed the steel industry, did Caterpillar drop any of its prices? Caterpillar has to be the best example I am serious I concede Caterpillar, I am sure got a raw deal

I can tell you one thing the lack of the steel industry costs America way more than $6.8 billion. Add all the welfare, all the taxes those people and their companies would have paid in taxes. You do the math. I bet it cost Youngstown Ohio more than that.

That $25 dollars cost for every dollar profit, had to be quite substantial, where is that money now. Steel profits were more than 140 million dollars for one quarter at U.S.steel that is one company, 25 time 140 million is what 3.5 billion savings for one quarter for one company. Where did all that money go…? I would be curios how they tabulated their numbers. I would bet there is a healthy dose of propaganda in that statement

http://www.nytimes.com/1984/08/01/business/us-steel-profit-140-million-in-quarter.html[/quote]

Where that money is now?

Who knows?

Not in expensive steel, thats for sure.

Since it must have gone somwhere people obviously got something they wanted more.

Getting thing you want more = better.

edit:

Let me rephrase that.

They bought food for their CHILDREN.

They bought clothes for their CHILDREN.

Before that they could buy less for their CHILDREN because GREEDY, SELFISH steel workers that only cared for PROFIT were syphoning off their hard earned cash.

100

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:
http://www.fff.org/freedom/fd0209d.asp

In early 1984, when the U.S. steel industry launched another deluge of unfair trade cases against imports, prices for cold-rolled sheet steel in the United States were nearly 40 percent higher than prices in other markets . Reagan announced on September 18, 1984, that he had decided that �??�??�?�¢??import relief is not in the national economic interest�??�??�?�¢?? and that �??�??�?�¢??we must do all we can to avoid protectionism, to keep our market open to free and fair competition, and to provide certainty of access for our trading partners.�??�??�?�¢??

…

Steel trade restrictions bushwhacked American industry. International Trade Commission chairman Paula Stern noted,

�??�??�?�¢??Inflated U.S. steel prices were an important factor in the erosion of U.S. manufacturing preeminence and employment from the 1960s to the mid 1980s.�??�??�?�¢??

The Institute for International Economics estimated that steel quotas cost U.S. consumers $6.8 billion a year. Steel shortages had had even more devastating impacts on American manufacturers than higher steel prices.

Even General Motors was hurt by quotas: GM Vice President James D. Johnston complained to the White House that steel shortages �??�??�?�¢??have jeopardized vehicle assembly at the company.�??�??�?�¢??

Steel quotas destroyed far more jobs than they saved. Caterpillar led the fight against the extension of steel quotas in 1989 with buttons proclaiming, �??�??�?�¢??Steel VRAs Steal Jobs.�??�??�?�¢?? Hans Mueller, professor of economics at Middle Tennessee State University, estimated that the quotas resulted in 13 jobs lost in steel-using industries for each steel-worker�??�??�?�¢??s job saved.

The Institute for International Economics estimated that quotas were costing the equivalent of $750,000 a year for each steel job �??�??�?�¢??saved.�??�??�?�¢?? A 1984 Federal Trade Commission study estimated that steel quotas cost the U.S. economy $25 for each additional dollar of profit of American steel producers. [/quote]

Orion, I take back every bad thing I thought about you, Out of curiosity, after Reagan killed the steel industry, did Caterpillar drop any of its prices? Caterpillar has to be the best example I am serious I concede Caterpillar, I am sure got a raw deal

I can tell you one thing the lack of the steel industry costs America way more than $6.8 billion. Add all the welfare, all the taxes those people and their companies would have paid in taxes. You do the math. I bet it cost Youngstown Ohio more than that.

That $25 dollars cost for every dollar profit, had to be quite substantial, where is that money now. Steel profits were more than 140 million dollars for one quarter at U.S.steel that is one company, 25 time 140 million is what 3.5 billion savings for one quarter for one company. Where did all that money go…? I would be curios how they tabulated their numbers. I would bet there is a healthy dose of propaganda in that statement

http://www.nytimes.com/1984/08/01/business/us-steel-profit-140-million-in-quarter.html[/quote]

Where that money is now?

Who knows?

Not in expensive steel, thats for sure.

Since it must have gone somwhere people obviously got something they wanted more.

Getting thing you want more = better.

edit:

Let me rephrase that.

They bought food for their CHILDREN.

They bought clothes for their CHILDREN.

Before that they could buy less for their CHILDREN because GREEDY, SELFISH steel workers that only cared for PROFIT were syphoning off their hard earned cash.

[/quote]

And I am sure none of the steel workers have the facilities to hold other jobs that get them off welfare and back into the tax rolls. They must have been born to work only in the steel industry?