Wow… those people are fucking fat poor people.
Sorry this is delayed by like 2 weeks… but damn.
[quote]Standndeliver wrote:
People come into my store, cash an unemployment check, and use the money to buy alcohol and lottery tickets. It makes me sad when I see their kids out in their car dressed in rags too.[/quote]
Oh God! I know exactly what you mean. I do bookkeeping at a store and occasionally have to cashier for someone. Everyday, without fail, people will come in and use their EBT card at the ATM. They take that money and then go buy cig’s, 40’s, lottery and candy bars. These people fucking disgust me.
On a similar note, we do have an employee at the store who works only part-time. He is on welfare and will refuse to pick up an additional shift for an employee who has covered him, just because it will interfere with him receiving his government check.
[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
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.
pittbulll wrote:
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
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. [/quote]
The last I heard (BRIC) (Brazil, Russia, India and China countries are using steel faster than it can be made
Hence steel being sold at all time high price .But I am back to how is America in a better standing due to the loss of a MAJOR industry? Please do not cloud the question with other subjects
And what investments did the money go into. Another point going back to your first post (Which may be the weak link in your free market theory, When you said �??Why would policy makers want to punish the entire country to protect a limited set of beneficiaries? �?? Our constitution reads we the people, not we the policy makers.
[quote]Bona wrote:
Standndeliver wrote:
People come into my store, cash an unemployment check, and use the money to buy alcohol and lottery tickets. It makes me sad when I see their kids out in their car dressed in rags too.
Oh God! I know exactly what you mean. I do bookkeeping at a store and occasionally have to cashier for someone. Everyday, without fail, people will come in and use their EBT card at the ATM. They take that money and then go buy cig’s, 40’s, lottery and candy bars. These people fucking disgust me.
On a similar note, we do have an employee at the store who works only part-time. He is on welfare and will refuse to pick up an additional shift for an employee who has covered him, just because it will interfere with him receiving his government check.[/quote]
Ther are slime balls that are rich and there are slime balls that are poor
[quote]Sifu wrote:
It is easy to get fat off of cheap food. You can get five packs of Ramman noodles for a dollar. Ground chuck is cheaper than ground sirloin. [/quote]
lets not forget too when you are broke you eat less,metabolism tanks and you get fat on the high carbs and fat you are eating from eating cheap
also look at thier nationality too
they have hispanic last names but I can bet the farm they are more than likley native american.
diabetes,obesity and everything that comes with it are huge problems with our people.
[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]
Are you really this dense?
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
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.
The steel industry died in America in the 80s where is all the cheap steel now?[/quote]
Still coming in. If it wasn’t we would fire up our dirty, dangerous steelmills again and then you could complain about how dangerous they are to workers.
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
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.
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
[/quote]
Wow man, you really don’t get it.
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
pittbulll wrote:
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.
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
Wow man, you really don’t get it. [/quote]
I am sorry; I do not understand how decimating the steel industry helped any faction of America
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
pittbulll wrote:
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.
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
Wow man, you really don’t get it.
I am sorry; I do not understand how decimating the steel industry helped any faction of America
[/quote]
You don’t understand how paying fair market value for a commodity instead of an inflated price for something that is dirty dangerous is a good thing?
If we protected the steel industry and its overpaid employees we would have damaged our auto industry and construction industry because the cost of steel would be too high. We would have significantly more pollution.
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
pittbulll wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
pittbulll wrote:
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.
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
Wow man, you really don’t get it.
I am sorry; I do not understand how decimating the steel industry helped any faction of America
You don’t understand how paying fair market value for a commodity instead of an inflated price for something that is dirty dangerous is a good thing?
If we protected the steel industry and its overpaid employees we would have damaged our auto industry and construction industry because the cost of steel would be too high. We would have significantly more pollution.
[/quote]
I understand the industry needed and still needs a lot of work. But look at the condition of NE Ohio it is like Eastern Europe. It is poor not many jobs and most of the jobs are low paying. Reagan should have tried something but He threw away the baby with the bath water
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
pittbulll wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
pittbulll wrote:
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.
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
Wow man, you really don’t get it.
I am sorry; I do not understand how decimating the steel industry helped any faction of America
You don’t understand how paying fair market value for a commodity instead of an inflated price for something that is dirty dangerous is a good thing?
If we protected the steel industry and its overpaid employees we would have damaged our auto industry and construction industry because the cost of steel would be too high. We would have significantly more pollution.
I understand the industry needed and still needs a lot of work. But look at the condition of NE Ohio it is like Eastern Europe. It is poor not many jobs and most of the jobs are low paying. Reagan should have tried something but He threw away the baby with the bath water
[/quote]
He just made the rest of the country stop overpaying for their overpriced products. That is a good thing. NE Ohio is fine. PA bounced back well.
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
pittbulll wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
pittbulll wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
pittbulll wrote:
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.
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
Wow man, you really don’t get it.
I am sorry; I do not understand how decimating the steel industry helped any faction of America
You don’t understand how paying fair market value for a commodity instead of an inflated price for something that is dirty dangerous is a good thing?
If we protected the steel industry and its overpaid employees we would have damaged our auto industry and construction industry because the cost of steel would be too high. We would have significantly more pollution.
I understand the industry needed and still needs a lot of work. But look at the condition of NE Ohio it is like Eastern Europe. It is poor not many jobs and most of the jobs are low paying. Reagan should have tried something but He threw away the baby with the bath water
He just made the rest of the country stop overpaying for their overpriced products. That is a good thing. NE Ohio is fine. PA bounced back well. [/quote]
If oil gets more expensive, than the profit margins derivded from producing goods in China and Southeast Asia evaporates. Already, many factories are closing in China b/c of the cost of shipping goods to the US.
If the trend continues, and it will, then it will suddenly become profitable to manufacture in the US again. It’s already starting to happen, especially given the weakness of our dollar.
That’s how the free market works. The invisible hand takes care of things much better than Our Beloved Leader or some other Democrat fascist like FDR.
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
pittbulll wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
pittbulll wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
pittbulll wrote:
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.
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
Wow man, you really don’t get it.
I am sorry; I do not understand how decimating the steel industry helped any faction of America
You don’t understand how paying fair market value for a commodity instead of an inflated price for something that is dirty dangerous is a good thing?
If we protected the steel industry and its overpaid employees we would have damaged our auto industry and construction industry because the cost of steel would be too high. We would have significantly more pollution.
I understand the industry needed and still needs a lot of work. But look at the condition of NE Ohio it is like Eastern Europe. It is poor not many jobs and most of the jobs are low paying. Reagan should have tried something but He threw away the baby with the bath water
He just made the rest of the country stop overpaying for their overpriced products. That is a good thing. NE Ohio is fine. PA bounced back well. [/quote]
Pittsburg was getting out of steel in the 70s, NE Ohio is poor. Nothing like it was before Reagan. That whole steel valley in struggling.
If I were President I would move the FBI in bust the Unions and open the mills back up. I would love to continue this conversation, but I have 2000 miles to cover. I will dredge it up when I get there
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
… I would love to continue this conversation, but I have 2000 miles to cover. I will dredge it up when I get there
[/quote]
drive safely.
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
The last I heard (BRIC) (Brazil, Russia, India and China countries are using steel faster than it can be made
Hence steel being sold at all time high price .But I am back to how is America in a better standing due to the loss of a MAJOR industry? Please do not cloud the question with other subjects
And what investments did the money go into. Another point going back to your first post (Which may be the weak link in your free market theory, When you said �??Why would policy makers want to punish the entire country to protect a limited set of beneficiaries? �?? Our constitution reads we the people, not we the policy makers.
[/quote]
Yes, and the last I heard, for the 20 years prior to that commodities had been in a major slump. That would have been a very useful investment of taxpayer dollars - prop up a loser industry, charge everyone else higher prices, in an area that was still declining.
You are aware that most commodities industries got hammered in the 80s and 90s, coincident to when “Reagan caused all the problems”, yes?
“What investments did the money go into?” More attractive ones. As one example, I believe Silicon Valley and computing generally have gotten pretty big since then.
Assuming that our steel mills could have been propped up this long with massive income transfers from the rest of society to the steel producers (via both the payments and the reduced yearly GDP), then there is a small chance that they would have added a neglible amount to overall global production - but of course, per Zap, as they had been protected they would not have had the incentive to invest in more efficient and/or cleaner and/or safer technology.
If steelmaking is such a great investment, why not start a steel mill now? I’m sure it would be profitable, given this great demand, right? It may just work if commodities don’t crash again - we’ll see.
But one would think that if it were profitable - and not regulated to death like energy production - it would come back. Much like a lot of new carmaking plants have popped up in the South in the last decade.
BTW, you should read a few books on government. There are a few sections in the Constitution after the preamble - including a few that actually give lawmaking authority and foreign-treaty authority to Congress and the President, respectively - you know, “policymakers.”
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
pittbulll wrote:
… I would love to continue this conversation, but I have 2000 miles to cover. I will dredge it up when I get there
drive safely.[/quote]
Thanks
[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
pittbulll wrote:
The last I heard (BRIC) (Brazil, Russia, India and China countries are using steel faster than it can be made
Hence steel being sold at all time high price .But I am back to how is America in a better standing due to the loss of a MAJOR industry? Please do not cloud the question with other subjects
And what investments did the money go into. Another point going back to your first post (Which may be the weak link in your free market theory, When you said �??Why would policy makers want to punish the entire country to protect a limited set of beneficiaries? �?? Our constitution reads we the people, not we the policy makers.
Yes, and the last I heard, for the 20 years prior to that commodities had been in a major slump. That would have been a very useful investment of taxpayer dollars - prop up a loser industry, charge everyone else higher prices, in an area that was still declining.
You are aware that most commodities industries got hammered in the 80s and 90s, coincident to when “Reagan caused all the problems”, yes?
“What investments did the money go into?” More attractive ones. As one example, I believe Silicon Valley and computing generally have gotten pretty big since then.
Assuming that our steel mills could have been propped up this long with massive income transfers from the rest of society to the steel producers (via both the payments and the reduced yearly GDP), then there is a small chance that they would have added a neglible amount to overall global production - but of course, per Zap, as they had been protected they would not have had the incentive to invest in more efficient and/or cleaner and/or safer technology.
If steelmaking is such a great investment, why not start a steel mill now? I’m sure it would be profitable, given this great demand, right? It may just work if commodities don’t crash again - we’ll see.
But one would think that if it were profitable - and not regulated to death like energy production - it would come back. Much like a lot of new carmaking plants have popped up in the South in the last decade.
BTW, you should read a few books on government. There are a few sections in the Constitution after the preamble - including a few that actually give lawmaking authority and foreign-treaty authority to Congress and the President, respectively - you know, “policymakers.”[/quote]
I know it was an Industry that was not as competitive as possible, and Reagan was getting close to the answer but he did not hit it head on. He should have gone after the Unions. That was why no one would invest in the mills.
In defense of the unions, the companies did not treat their workers well until the unions came in and demanded that they do so.
IMO why they do not drag the mills out of the moth balls are because of the unions .If they were to bust them people would be willing to invest in the rust belt. I know from my home town if you want to start just about any business, the unions will come in and put their foot on your throat ,tell you�?? if you do not hire UNION you will never open your doors . They are entrenched in every aspect of that geographical location.
BUST the UNIONS
I agree that unions are a huge problem.
But contrast steel to cars - car makers have gotten around union problems, to an extent, by locating new factories in the South or in the West. So there are many new factories producing cars in the U.S. - they just aren’t in the states with ridiculous pro union laws. I’m unaware of the same thing happening with steel plants though.
However, on you union point, unions may well force American car companies to get out of car production all together. Just look at what’s going on with Chrysler and Nissan…
[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
However, on you union point, unions may well force American car companies to get out of car production all together. Just look at what’s going on with Chrysler and Nissan…[/quote]
Yep.
The only interests served by unions are union bosses and lawyers.
$35/hour with awesome health benefits are great for the individual but at a cost of marginal employment on the American auto industry as a whole.