Steeling Our Wealth

Wall Street Journal ^ | 9/23/03 | WSJ Op-Ed

[Texas_Dawg]

Steeling Our Wealth Bush's tariffs deal the economy a $680 million hit.

Long ago we characterized President Bush's imposition of steel tariffs in 2002 as the single worst decision of his Presidency. Now someone's finally put a price tag on it. According to a just-released report from the International Trade Commission, in their first year U.S. steel tariffs inflicted a $680 million hit on an already struggling U.S. economy.

[Texas_Dawg]

Link to the ITC report:

http://www.usitc.gov/pub3632/pub3632.htm

[Texas_Dawg]

.

[Texas_Dawg]

From the report:

"In addition, several firms reported on the expected effects of continuation of the safeguard measures at the Commission hearings. For example, a representative from Caterpillar reported that “if we are forced to continue to do business under these circumstances, we’ll continue to reduce costs to offset that. It creates uncertainty for employment. We’ll continue to use our offshore manufacturing sources to satisfy the demand around the world.” In addition, a representative from the Precision Metalforming Association reported that "if the tariffs continue, there’s no question there will be fewer people employed. There will be lower profits in the industry, less equipment will [be] bought and more plants will close."

[general_re]

If we were at all honest about the steel tariffs and what they're really doing, we would stop pussyfooting around with indirect wealth redistribution schemes, and just pass a law ordering every American citizen to mail a check directly to steelmakers.

[Texas_Dawg]

If we were at all honest about the steel tariffs and what they're really doing, we would stop pussyfooting around with indirect wealth redistribution schemes, and just pass a law ordering every American citizen to mail a check directly to steelmakers.

Exactly. Thank you.

How many Americans would ever mail a check directly to HUD or their local steel mill if it weren't for the government forcing them to do so? It's sad to see so-called conservatives who oppose federal wealth redistribution programs like welfare and housing projects, then turn and support the exact same totalitarianist measures with only the beneficiaries changing to steel plant owners and their friends that work there.

[general_re]

It's sad but true - everybody loves theft, so long as the proper people are doing the stealing. People only seem to get upset when it's the "wrong" group picking their pockets.

[Texas_Dawg]

People only seem to get upset when it's the "wrong" group picking their pockets.

And on the flip side of that, they only get upset when the "wrong" groups of people are being rewarded by the theft. Welfare payments to "lazy bums" and "immigrants" are wrong, but welfare payments to "the middle class" and "farmers" (read, "white people") are OK. Just as it's OK on FR to hate "evil CEOs" and "rich people" but "the middle class" is utterly holy and saint-like.

[general_re]

There's apparently something magic about blue-collar manufacturing jobs that's supposed to make me lose all common sense and start giving away money without complaint. Since not giving away free money is apparently no longer an option, I'd at least like to know in advance how much of my money they're entitled to, so I can start planning around the new hole in my wallet...

[Texas_Dawg]

Since not giving away free money is apparently no longer an option, I'd at least like to know in advance how much of my money they're entitled to, so I can start planning around the new hole in my wallet...

This type of opinion from you necessarily means you "hate the middle class" and want to see their jobs "exported". I wonder... how many of these great patriots would mail a few thousand dollars to their local steel mill, with nothing in return, at the end of each year, if the government removed the tariffs but encouraged people to freely support their factories that way? No... we must force our morals on everyone else via the federal government we claim to hate!

[Coop]

There's one aspect missing from this equation, and that's the national security issue. Everyone here all agrees that we should develop more domestic oil and energy resources, but they often overlook the problems we'd have if our steel resources only came from overseas. I don't like the tariffs either (tit for tat), but I at least concede the national security point to the Administration. I welcome your thoughts on this.

[general_re]

There's a certain logic to the national security argument for a few things, but the problem is that everyone tries to claim that loophole - domestic underwear manufacturers claiming that their product is vital to national security and other silliness. With respect to steel in particular, the problem is that the Defense Department's annual steel requirement is infinitesimal compared to the amount of steel produced in this country - DoD requires about 325,000 tons of steel annually, and in a full-blown war situation, might need 650,000 tons annually, according to the Department of Commerce. Last week, 1.7 million tons of steel was produced in this country. Even in a worst case scenario, we could import 99.3% of our steel annually, and still cover national security needs with domestic production.

[Coop]

Good info. I'm really quite surprised the DoD's chunk of the industry is that small. It does make the national security argument seem rather weak.

[Texas_Dawg]

The Left claims that welfare payments and housing projects are a national security issue too. ("No justice, no peace", etc.)

Different rationale but equally bogus.

[upcountryhorseman]

This whole "free trade" issue has me up in arms! First
of all, there is no such thing as "free trade". Every
industrial nation in the world imposes tariffs, fees and taxes on imports. Also, in most nations, agricultural production is subsidized. We must do whatever is necessary
to protect our economy: we have become totally dependent
upon other nations for many essential products. This is
not good for national security.

[Coop]

Different rationale but equally bogus.

Then I must presume you feel the same way about domestic vs. foreign energy resources.

[Texas_Dawg]

We must do whatever is necessary to protect our economy: we have become totally dependent upon other nations for many essential products.

"Protective" tariffs and other socialist measures do not protect an economy. They take money from everyone else to prop up dying industries. Why don't the hundreds of thousands of job losses in the steel-consuming industries in the past year, thanks to the tariffs, concern you?

[Texas_Dawg]

Then I must presume you feel the same way about domestic vs. foreign energy resources.

It's a little bit different situation. Currently our federal government is banning companies from developing the energy supplies we know are out there. No one is banning the steel companies from doing anything if tariffs are removed. But even with energy, we will ultimately get the energy from where it is most efficiently purchased. If that's by our own means, great. If not, so be it. If we were to force people to waste money on domestic energy sources we would do very little to Middle Eastern oil-producing countries while wasting billions of our dollars and putting a huge weight on our economy. Buying oil from Middle Eastern countries and using our military to keep their radicals in line are not mutually exclusive.

[JNB]

Again, more crap from the Neo_conservative version of the New York Times, the WSJ. If anyone wants to read a real financial newspaper that isint a cheerleader for banking intrests, read the Financial Times.

[JNB]

PING

[Texas_Dawg]

Is National Review a bunch of commie pinkos too?

http://www.nationalreview.com/kudlow/kudlow092303.asp

Maybe you are the one that just isn't that conservative.