Replies

It's some sort of myopia. If you follow their argument (I'm being generous) to it's logical conclusion, they contradict themselves.

2000 National Productivity of Steel Production
Country	Steel Production (million metric tons)	Employment (thousands)	Productivity (tons/employee)
Australia	8.5	21	404
Austria	5.7	12	475
Belgium	11.6	20	580
Brazil	27.9	63	443
Canada	16.6	56	296
Finland	4.1	8	512
France	21.0	37	567
Germany	46.4	77	602
Italy	26.7	39	684
Japan	106.4	197	540
Luxembourg	2.6	4	650
Netherlands	5.7	12	475
South Korea	43.1	57	756
Spain	15.8	22	718
Sweden	5.2	13	400
United Kingdom	15.2	29	524
United States	101.5	151	672

The US steel industry employs the most productive technology on the face of the planet.
Minimill operators, such as Nucor, are capable of productivity levels exceeding 1000 tons/employee.
The national average is reduced only by the necessity of larger, integrated mills which produce steel from ore instead of scrap metal. Unlike the minimills, this provides us the ability to produce more sophisticated alloys with greater control over the quality.

America's enemies undermine our national security with trade policies that emphasize importation of cheaper, crap steel.

The US steel industry employs the most productive technology on the face of the planet.

Then why do you need to protect them from less productive producers?

America's enemies undermine our national security with trade policies that emphasize importation of cheaper, crap steel.

So, you'll protect steel consumers who want "cheaper, crap steel" because you're smarter than they are? If the cheaper steel is lower quality, some consumers will accept that price/quality trade off and some won't. You know, the free market. People coming together to voluntarily trade goods and services. Without Willie standing between them saying, "Wait, I don't think this is good for America"

Now please explain again, if you can, how expensive steel is good for America?