The Face of Poverty in America

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
141

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
pittbulll wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
NateOrade wrote:
pittbulll wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
pittbulll wrote:
PRCalDude wrote:
I will cover the landscaping business in Arizona, I am guessing %50 of the businesses is owned by illegal that employ illegal. For me to start a business I would have to find some one to work door less than minimum wage. I would not be able to pay taxes. If I did that and I got large enough I could ear a decent living. The majority of legitimate landscapers have commercial accts. But they still employ a lot of illegal
They are not taking the jobs others do not want they are taking all the low end jobs and gradually working up into good jobs and driving the price of labor down. And hence you have poverty that in a market free of illegal labor would not exist
We have too many landscapers we nee to reduce them to a point where , If I wanted I could go out earn a living and pay my taxes .

We’re becoming a two-tiered society.

Absolutly

Becoming? When haven’t we been?

At least in America there is opportunity. That is why people flood across the border.

They flood across the border because life is better in America than in Mexico

And there’s lots of opportunity.

Which creates better life.

Socialism/Marxism decreases opportunity and kills incentive.

Create a better life for the Mexicans and delutes the quality of life for America’s working poor

I am not in favor of illegal immigration. I am in favor of the freedoms we have that attracts them.[/quote]

I would go as far to say I am in favor of legal immigration, but their are too many coming across the border illegally

142

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

No one has a gun to my head; our Government insists I pay taxes. And I am guessing they insist you pay taxes as well. Right now I may not agree with the way our Government is spending our money, but I realize we have infrastructure and such that are not covered in the constitution, but must be maintained and even expanded upon. Some one has to pay and I realize that one of those people must be me.

In a society that has no laws, a Black Market would be a free market. Other wise a free market must have rules and laws to guarantee freedom for all.

No one has a gun to your head?

Then try not to pay your taxes. You may insist that you pay voluntary, but you don´t. Since the system leaves you no choice your “decision” to pay or not pay hardly matters.

First they will come to steal your stuff. If you resist them, they will kill you.

End of story.

Plus, markets have developed laws, not laws markets. You have it exactly backwards and I know that because I know how Roman trade law developed out of customs developed at roman fairs.

And our trade laws practically still are Roman trade law, plus a few side notes.

So, black markets have rules. They are just not taxed.

We wil have to agree to disagree

I am an old timer , Neil Diamond rocks , but your video seems to favor no amnesty for illegal immigration. Which I favor

143

[quote]Lorisco wrote:
pittbulll wrote:
Lorisco wrote:
pittbulll wrote:
Lorisco wrote:
orion wrote:
pittbulll wrote:
NateOrade wrote:
pittbulll wrote:

You want to over simplify life,

I think you’re right.

Take this thought-process for instance:

“Place I live in has no jobs. Place bad. I will go to another place that has jobs.”

…Way too simple. Damn.

What do you do with your house that will never sell? All of your family lives in your home town. You never made enough money to save much, and how are you going to finance your move. You have a high school education or worse.

Prospects of getting a high paying job are slim. If you move away from your mother in law who would watch the kids, do you know what the cost of child care is? These are just some complications with out be too creative.

And the Mexicans that stream across the borders seem to be able to solve these problems.

That is why they get the jobs these Americans apparently cannot take.

Now, if those Americans apparently are unable to deal with their situations should those jobs not be done by someone else?

What good would that do?

Mexicans understand hard work and sacrifice. They have extended families so child care is not an issue. They have a very strong work ethic and would never just sit around like most welfare Americans waiting for handouts. They would have more than one job to make ends meet.

NOBODY truly understands the opportunities this country (USA) offers as much as immigrants. Most born here are fat a lazy and expect things to be given to them. And politicians pander to this idea of entitlement. This is a foreign concept to immigrants.

I agree with you the Mexican�??s are great people, but we are in America and not Mexico. Mexicans are seriously impacting the wage in the South West I have been told by the experts on this forum that it is not the job of the Government to protect Americans wages from foreign invaders . I happen to disagree. .If America offers such great opportunities we should annex Mexico. I believe you would see where the Mexican loyalties lay.
I can not own property with in 25 miles of the ocean in Mexico. If I want to operate a business in Mexico, I should marry a national; otherwise it could be seized by the Government. Americans are more than generous with their legal offerings to the Mexicans. America should take its laws off of the books if they do not plan on enforcing them.

Well, the problem is that while Americans are crying that Mexicans are taking their jobs, no one will do these jobs for that kind of pay other than Mexicans. Americans are too proud and too spoiled to work long hard hours for low pay. But Mexicans see it as low pay is better than no pay.

The problem is that Unions in the US have created a false economy based on entitlement. Demanding high wages for low skilled jobs just costs everyone more money and drags down the economy and the businesses being forced to pay high wages to low skilled workers. For example, GM uses Union labor and is having to lay off a lot of people, but Foreign companies like Toyota are doing fine because even though most Toyota’s sold in the US are actually built in the US, they do not use Union labor. So their costs are less, yet they produce very reliable cars.

So the fact that non-Union labor car companies have been kicking the ass of car companies like GM for years proves my point. Whether it is a car company or a country, having to pay for entitlement drags everything down.

So it’s not that Mexicans are taking all the jobs. It’s that the US non-skilled wage is totally inflated compared to the rest of the world, not just Mexico.

I will cover the landscaping business in Arizona, I am guessing %50 of the businesses is owned by illegal that employ illegal. For me to start a business I would have to find some one to work door less than minimum wage. I would not be able to pay taxes. If I did that and I got large enough I could ear a decent living. The majority of legitimate landscapers have commercial accts. But they still employ a lot of illegal
They are not taking the jobs others do not want they are taking all the low end jobs and gradually working up into good jobs and driving the price of labor down. And hence you have poverty that in a market free of illegal labor would not exist
We have too many landscapers we nee to reduce them to a point where , If I wanted I could go out earn a living and pay my taxes .

I agree with that. I never stated that illegal was ok. Work visa, green card, etc. But just hooping the fence and then doing what they want is not right. You should call the INS on those landscapers.

[/quote]

We agree , but the INS won’t do shit there are too many I would say the majority of Mexicans in Arizona are illegal ,Cali has to be the same

144

[quote]pittbulll wrote:
NateOrade wrote:
pittbulll wrote:

I will cover the landscaping business in Arizona, I am guessing %50 of the businesses is owned by illegal that employ illegal. For me to start a business I would have to find some one to work door less than minimum wage. I would not be able to pay taxes. If I did that and I got large enough I could ear a decent living. The majority of legitimate landscapers have commercial accts. But they still employ a lot of illegal

Then get into a different industry!!!

I guess that’s another example of my “simplistic” thinking. If a certain kind of job is being taken over by illegals…I go into a market that is not affected.

(Again, not that I’m a fan of illegals)

Your response is amusing; it is always the same, run. The problems that plague an industry or society are not solved by running away from them. What political persuasion would suggest some one lose their back bone? I have been self employed for over 20 years, and if I would advise any one to what attributes would assure success, the first one would be tenacity.

[/quote]

Ah, giving smart selection of business a derogatory term like “run” as if going where the money is is cowardly. Cute. Complete bullshit, but cute.

Who gives a fuck about political persuasion when you’re losing money? If you’ve been self-employed for 20 years, I assume you’re a millionaire? Tenacity is great…but taking it to the point of stupidity is…stupid. You’re the kind of guy who would have advised the VCR producers to “have tenacity” and chided those going to DVDs for “running”, huh?

Your background is showing. I can just picture it: “I’ve been working this production line for 20 years damnit! I’m not going to run! It’s my back bone! …Please government save me!!!”

145

[quote]NateOrade wrote:
pittbulll wrote:
NateOrade wrote:
pittbulll wrote:

I will cover the landscaping business in Arizona, I am guessing %50 of the businesses is owned by illegal that employ illegal. For me to start a business I would have to find some one to work door less than minimum wage. I would not be able to pay taxes. If I did that and I got large enough I could ear a decent living. The majority of legitimate landscapers have commercial accts. But they still employ a lot of illegal

Then get into a different industry!!!

I guess that’s another example of my “simplistic” thinking. If a certain kind of job is being taken over by illegals…I go into a market that is not affected.

(Again, not that I’m a fan of illegals)

Your response is amusing; it is always the same, run. The problems that plague an industry or society are not solved by running away from them. What political persuasion would suggest some one lose their back bone? I have been self employed for over 20 years, and if I would advise any one to what attributes would assure success, the first one would be tenacity.

Ah, giving smart selection of business a derogatory term like “run” as if going where the money is is cowardly. Cute. Complete bullshit, but cute.

Who gives a fuck about political persuasion when you’re losing money? If you’ve been self-employed for 20 years, I assume you’re a millionaire? Tenacity is great…but taking it to the point of stupidity is…stupid. You’re the kind of guy who would have advised the VCR producers to “have tenacity” and chided those going to DVDs for “running”, huh?

Your background is showing. I can just picture it: “I’ve been working this production line for 20 years damnit! I’m not going to run! It’s my back bone! …Please government save me!!!”
[/quote]

You may have been Educated enough to just make a selection of the business you want to be in. But speaking for my self, I have certain skills that are marketable. I can not market skills that I do not possess.
My point is illegal immigration has ruined the industry for any one that would be inclined to make a living at landscaping. Being a Carpenter /plumber/ Electrician I do not want to see the prices beat down to the point that I can not make a legal buck.

Right now the trucking industry is under attack from legal Mexican trucks that would never pass an American safety inspection, let alone air pollution standards.
When you do require one block of the labor market to pay all the dues that the rest do, you are in a sense of subsidizing that block, or punishing the other
You seem angry. Why the anger?
My back ground is very humble. I am sure you would consider my back round to be that of white trash. But I am proud of where I have come from and what I am today. I will not speculate about you. But if you want to answer questions let me know.

146

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

You may have been Educated enough to just make a selection of the business you want to be in.

[/quote]

I am a college dropout, and never took business classes in school. I have no relatives that are business owners or self-employed. All useful education I SOUGHT out like any healthy human can.

Get skills. (That would be my answer if one were asking for advice)

It annoyed the hell out of me when you reduce my stance to “run” as if my opinion (get into industries and areas that make money) is to be a coward.

147

[quote]NateOrade wrote:
pittbulll wrote:

You may have been Educated enough to just make a selection of the business you want to be in.

I am a college dropout, and never took business classes in school. I have no relatives that are business owners or self-employed. All useful education I SOUGHT out like any healthy human can.

But speaking for my self, I have certain skills that are marketable. I can not market skills that I do not possess.

Get skills. (That would be my answer if one were asking for advice)

My point is illegal immigration has ruined the industry for any one that would be inclined to make a living at landscaping. Being a Carpenter /plumber/ Electrician I do not want to see the prices beat down to the point that I can not make a legal buck.

Right now the trucking industry is under attack from legal Mexican trucks that would never pass an American safety inspection, let alone air pollution standards.

When you do require one block of the labor market to pay all the dues that the rest do, you are in a sense of subsidizing that block, or punishing the other

You seem angry. Why the anger?

It annoyed the hell out of me when you reduce my stance to “run” as if my opinion (get into industries and areas that make money) is to be a coward.

[/quote]

I would agree with you, if asked for personal advice I would tell a poor person in an economically depressed area to flee and by all means seek an education that can guarantee a successful life.
But politically speaking we as Americans have to protect the Industries that make our Country prosperous, in my humble opinion we have to fight to stay prosperous
The reason I take the position of the poor is not because I am poor nor need an occupation. It is because I see our Government pissing away the future of business for our youth. I have Children and grand children I believe it would be a sin for me not to care about these issues.
I know Reagan is a god in the conservative realms, but there is no way anyone can tell me what Reagan did to the Steel industry was a good thing. I would agree the Unions may have needed to be busted. But Reagan decimated the Steel industry in America
I can see it coming for the Trucking industry next; they want to pay these Independent truckers barley over minimum wage after they invest fifty thousand dollars in their business. Then all you hear is we can not find any one that wants to be a trucker.
I can see first hand the effects on the Construction Industry
These issues are trivial to most people, but these are crucial for America to remain a leader in this world
The original post was posted in a political forum and the subject was The face of poverty in America, not career advice, meaning no disrespect. Just think of the destabilizing affect it would have on our Country if when a geographical location would lose a major employer or industry that every one would flock to the next boom town. The infrastructure could never handle that type of migration. Neither could any industry survive if every body were to exited.

148

I’ve got a friend who’s been telling me for 10 years that he plans to go to junior college and pick up a trade. “Be a mechanic,” I tell him. There’s a ton of demand for good mechanics around here. The idea appeals to him and the field interests him. A year later, he’s still making “plans”. Hasn’t registered for classes, hasn’t done anything about it. Goes to Vegas all the time and does plenty of other useless things, but doesn’t take 1 step to better his $9/hr situation. He’s got plenty of intelligence too. I wonder how common this type of behavior is amongst the jobless and poor. 6 months is all it takes to get a certificate in many cases.

149

Thanks FDR. While welfare worked then as an “Out”, it should have been slowly dissinegrated over time. Too many people suck the tit of the government and complain about it. Get up an make something of yourself.

We now have generations of welfare rats who feel “entitled” to it and grow up EXPECTING it. Have more kids, get more money. That is their carrer.

Welfare should not even be an option today.

Go get a fking JOB!

Things are only going to get worse. Nancy P is out to “Equalize” Americans income. I think Marx was the authour of that line of though.

150

[quote]Rockscar wrote:
Thanks FDR. While welfare worked then as an “Out”, it should have been slowly dissinegrated over time. Too many people suck the tit of the government and complain about it. Get up an make something of yourself.

We now have generations of welfare rats who feel “entitled” to it and grow up EXPECTING it. Have more kids, get more money. That is their carrer.

Welfare should not even be an option today.

Go get a fking JOB!

Things are only going to get worse. Nancy P is out to “Equalize” Americans income. I think Marx was the authour of that line of though.[/quote]

Clinton passed a Welfare reform bill; I guess the new hand outs are via Social Security

151

[quote]pittbulll wrote:
I know Reagan is a god in the conservative realms, but there is no way anyone can tell me what Reagan did to the Steel industry was a good thing. I would agree the Unions may have needed to be busted. But Reagan decimated the Steel industry in America
[/quote]

Inflated steel prices may be good for the steel industry, but they are definitely not a good thing for other industries that require steel in the manufacturing process.

You also have to realize that if the US uses protectionist policies for some of it’s industries, you have no credibility to complain when your exporters are hurt by other countries doing the same thing.

152

[quote]Regular Gonzalez wrote:
pittbulll wrote:
I know Reagan is a god in the conservative realms, but there is no way anyone can tell me what Reagan did to the Steel industry was a good thing. I would agree the Unions may have needed to be busted. But Reagan decimated the Steel industry in America

Inflated steel prices may be good for the steel industry, but they are definitely not a good thing for other industries that require steel in the manufacturing process.

You also have to realize that if the US uses protectionist policies for some of it’s industries, you have no credibility to complain when your exporters are hurt by other countries doing the same thing.

[/quote]

Health care would be one of those subsidies that would not have been equated in the cost of steel. Any country that had a Government funded health care system would have been ahead of the curve. I am not sure the Reagan had all the figures straight, they were importing steel from third world countries. No human rights, no OSHA. Only an Idiot would want Americans to compete with that.

I do not know the answer, may be Regan acted too quick, maybe America was not ready to compete with the world on a Global scale.
China is subsidizing a lot of their industries so they remain competitive. China is also artificially devaluing their YUAN to remain a leader in foreign trade
There is no justifying the decimation of income for the Steel Valley (known today as the RUST BELT)
Reagan is to blame for the poverty in NE Ohio and Pennsylvania, Indiana, Illinois and parts of Michigan

153

I don’t even know where to begin with this miasma of misinformation.

Why would policy makers want to punish the entire country to protect a limited set of beneficiaries? That’s exactly what tariffs do. How many other industries in the U.S. use steel? Construction, automobile, etc. - all a tariff does is create a wealth transfer from those industries and their customers to steel producers. Economists overwhelmingly favor free trade, on both sides of the political aisle.

These are a good start for the benefits of free trade:

http://www.heritage.org/research/tradeandforeignaid/bg2024.cfm

http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=5354

The way to deal with the people in the industries who are “harmed” when their special protections are removed and they quit receiving income transfers from the rest of the country is by retraining and education. Then they can begin to produce in more efficient industries, assuming that the then-unprotected industries contract.

Subsidization by China, to give Americans lower prices, is essentially China taxing the Chinese and sending the money to American consumers.

As for health care, what are you talking about?

154

[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:

pittbulll wrote:
I know Reagan is a god in the conservative realms, but there is no way anyone can tell me what Reagan did to the Steel industry was a good thing. I would agree the Unions may have needed to be busted. But Reagan decimated the Steel industry in America

Regular Gonzalez wrote:
Inflated steel prices may be good for the steel industry, but they are definitely not a good thing for other industries that require steel in the manufacturing process.

You also have to realize that if the US uses protectionist policies for some of it’s industries, you have no credibility to complain when your exporters are hurt by other countries doing the same thing.

pittbulll wrote:

Health care would be one of those subsidies that would not have been equated in the cost of steel. Any country that had a Government funded health care system would have been ahead of the curve. I am not sure the Reagan had all the figures straight, they were importing steel from third world countries. No human rights, no OSHA. Only an Idiot would want Americans to compete with that.

I do not know the answer, may be Regan acted too quick, maybe America was not ready to compete with the world on a Global scale.
China is subsidizing a lot of their industries so they remain competitive. China is also artificially devaluing their YUAN to remain a leader in foreign trade
There is no justifying the decimation of income for the Steel Valley (known today as the RUST BELT)
Reagan is to blame for the poverty in NE Ohio and Pennsylvania, Indiana, Illinois and parts of Michigan

I don’t even know where to begin with this miasma of misinformation.

Why would policy makers want to punish the entire country to protect a limited set of beneficiaries? That’s exactly what tariffs do. How many other industries in the U.S. use steel? Construction, automobile, etc. - all a tariff does is create a wealth transfer from those industries and their customers to steel producers. Economists overwhelmingly favor free trade, on both sides of the political aisle.

These are a good start for the benefits of free trade:

http://www.heritage.org/research/tradeandforeignaid/bg2024.cfm

http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=5354

The way to deal with the people in the industries who are “harmed” when their special protections are removed and they quit receiving income transfers from the rest of the country is by retraining and education. Then they can begin to produce in more efficient industries, assuming that the then-unprotected industries contract.

Subsidization by China, to give Americans lower prices, is essentially China taxing the Chinese and sending the money to American consumers.

As for health care, what are you talking about?

[/quote]

With out educating me on the benefits of free trade, in your own words tell me how Reagan, in destroying the economic machine in a large portion of this country did the whole of this country any good.

155

[quote]pittbulll wrote:
BostonBarrister wrote:

pittbulll wrote:
I know Reagan is a god in the conservative realms, but there is no way anyone can tell me what Reagan did to the Steel industry was a good thing. I would agree the Unions may have needed to be busted. But Reagan decimated the Steel industry in America

Regular Gonzalez wrote:
Inflated steel prices may be good for the steel industry, but they are definitely not a good thing for other industries that require steel in the manufacturing process.

You also have to realize that if the US uses protectionist policies for some of it’s industries, you have no credibility to complain when your exporters are hurt by other countries doing the same thing.

pittbulll wrote:

Health care would be one of those subsidies that would not have been equated in the cost of steel. Any country that had a Government funded health care system would have been ahead of the curve. I am not sure the Reagan had all the figures straight, they were importing steel from third world countries. No human rights, no OSHA. Only an Idiot would want Americans to compete with that.

I do not know the answer, may be Regan acted too quick, maybe America was not ready to compete with the world on a Global scale.
China is subsidizing a lot of their industries so they remain competitive. China is also artificially devaluing their YUAN to remain a leader in foreign trade
There is no justifying the decimation of income for the Steel Valley (known today as the RUST BELT)
Reagan is to blame for the poverty in NE Ohio and Pennsylvania, Indiana, Illinois and parts of Michigan

I don’t even know where to begin with this miasma of misinformation.

Why would policy makers want to punish the entire country to protect a limited set of beneficiaries? That’s exactly what tariffs do. How many other industries in the U.S. use steel? Construction, automobile, etc. - all a tariff does is create a wealth transfer from those industries and their customers to steel producers. Economists overwhelmingly favor free trade, on both sides of the political aisle.

These are a good start for the benefits of free trade:

http://www.heritage.org/research/tradeandforeignaid/bg2024.cfm

http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=5354

The way to deal with the people in the industries who are “harmed” when their special protections are removed and they quit receiving income transfers from the rest of the country is by retraining and education. Then they can begin to produce in more efficient industries, assuming that the then-unprotected industries contract.

Subsidization by China, to give Americans lower prices, is essentially China taxing the Chinese and sending the money to American consumers.

As for health care, what are you talking about?

With out educating me on the benefits of free trade, in your own words tell me how Reagan, in destroying the economic machine in a large portion of this country did the whole of this country any good.

[/quote]

Because cheap steel=good for the economy.

156

[quote]orion wrote:
pittbulll wrote:
BostonBarrister wrote:

pittbulll wrote:
I know Reagan is a god in the conservative realms, but there is no way anyone can tell me what Reagan did to the Steel industry was a good thing. I would agree the Unions may have needed to be busted. But Reagan decimated the Steel industry in America

Regular Gonzalez wrote:
Inflated steel prices may be good for the steel industry, but they are definitely not a good thing for other industries that require steel in the manufacturing process.

You also have to realize that if the US uses protectionist policies for some of it’s industries, you have no credibility to complain when your exporters are hurt by other countries doing the same thing.

pittbulll wrote:

Health care would be one of those subsidies that would not have been equated in the cost of steel. Any country that had a Government funded health care system would have been ahead of the curve. I am not sure the Reagan had all the figures straight, they were importing steel from third world countries. No human rights, no OSHA. Only an Idiot would want Americans to compete with that.

I do not know the answer, may be Regan acted too quick, maybe America was not ready to compete with the world on a Global scale.
China is subsidizing a lot of their industries so they remain competitive. China is also artificially devaluing their YUAN to remain a leader in foreign trade
There is no justifying the decimation of income for the Steel Valley (known today as the RUST BELT)
Reagan is to blame for the poverty in NE Ohio and Pennsylvania, Indiana, Illinois and parts of Michigan

I don’t even know where to begin with this miasma of misinformation.

Why would policy makers want to punish the entire country to protect a limited set of beneficiaries? That’s exactly what tariffs do. How many other industries in the U.S. use steel? Construction, automobile, etc. - all a tariff does is create a wealth transfer from those industries and their customers to steel producers. Economists overwhelmingly favor free trade, on both sides of the political aisle.

These are a good start for the benefits of free trade:

http://www.heritage.org/research/tradeandforeignaid/bg2024.cfm

http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=5354

The way to deal with the people in the industries who are “harmed” when their special protections are removed and they quit receiving income transfers from the rest of the country is by retraining and education. Then they can begin to produce in more efficient industries, assuming that the then-unprotected industries contract.

Subsidization by China, to give Americans lower prices, is essentially China taxing the Chinese and sending the money to American consumers.

As for health care, what are you talking about?

With out educating me on the benefits of free trade, in your own words tell me how Reagan, in destroying the economic machine in a large portion of this country did the whole of this country any good.

Because cheap steel=good for the economy.

[/quote]

The steel industry died in America in the 80s where is all the cheap steel now?

157

[quote]pittbulll wrote:
orion wrote:

The steel industry died in America in the 80s where is all the cheap steel now?[/quote]

Still in America.

It just comes by ship.

158

Without educating you on the benefits of free trade it won’t be possible - you got the basics of it above. The two main benefits:

(1) Consumers got lower prices - consumers of cars, homes, buildings, and anything else made with steel.

(2) Improving efficiency in U.S. resource allocation. If the steel industry wasn’t competitive, better to put resources into other industries that were. Maximizes long-term growth.

159

[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
Without educating you on the benefits of free trade it won’t be possible - you got the basics of it above. The two main benefits:

(1) Consumers got lower prices - consumers of cars, homes, buildings, and anything else made with steel.

(2) Improving efficiency in U.S. resource allocation. If the steel industry wasn’t competitive, better to put resources into other industries that were. Maximizes long-term growth.
[/quote]

Problem is they did not put the energy into another industry, nor did they retrain or educate their workers, I know I was there. There was a lot of talk coming out of
Washington. They did give us a couple of 13 week extensions on unemployment. But looking back on the situation and even considering the education I do have on the subject of free trade. I can come up with no other conclusion than Reagan fucked up. We all understand supply and demand there would be more steel in the market, right now if the Mills in America had survived Reagan

160

No, they did - money that would have gone into steel went into other investments instead.

Apparently we don’t ALL understand supply and demand. By this time we wouldn’t have more steel on the market. When a producer goes off line there may be a short-term decrease in supply for a product, but to the extent the demand remains the same or increases either other producers will produce more or new companies will come on line to produce more.