• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Yet another Economic Discussion - Steel Tariff

minendo

minendo

Elite Member
I figured I would pose the newest question asked by my Econ professor to see what you guys thought. I only bring it up because the Minimum Wage discussion proved to be a success. So what are your thoughts?

Should the United States impose tariffs on imported steel, and if so, how high should the tariffs be?

Discuss what choice you made and why you made that choice.


By the way: there will be no choices added to the poll so don't ask.
 
Well, I know you said not to ask so I won't ask, but I won't vote either, here's why: It seems apparent that some nations are unfairly subsidizing steel. However, the Tarriff seems to be targeted at many who are not subsidizing according to international trade practices. So, for those using unfair subsidies, impose the Tarriff. For those that are not, no tarriff should be applied, unless an international trade tribunal declares those alleged subsidies as illegal/unfair.
 
I don't like this subject at all. My hero, GW, you know, the guy that lost the election, sold us right wingers right down the tubes just to get a few votes in a critical state. I'm so ashamed of him I can hardly look people in the eyes. If I had wanted a worthless traitor to his cause I would have voted for Clinton. How can I ever look my immoral atheist neighbor in the eyes and go Na Na Ne Na Na, we got character on our side.
 
well it depends on whether or not the us wants a steel industry? US steel can't compete on foreing markets because us labor costs are to high. If the US wants to have a steel industry tariffs are necessary to remain competitive. Not sure of the rate. but what it takes to make us steel competitive.
COmpletly against WTO regulations that past two administrations have loved
 
i'm not sure that US labor costs more. we're competing with germany and japan for steel. germans are moving auto production here to get out of german labor laws. i think its more the antiquated factories. they didn't have to be rebuilt after WWII like everyone else's did.

steel is a strategic industry and not having a steel industry could doom us in a major war, so there is that consideration

as such i think that there should be some sort of gov't intervention, not a tariff but an incentive for new factories.
 
From what I've read, thus far we've managed to piss off the EU, Russia, and various other countries. Also, the day after Bush imposed the tariffs National Steel went down the tubes.

So....I'm not sure that this tariff is going to do our already-dying steel industries any good. And all it's going to do is piss off countries we need to have good relations with.

I think the tariff should have been much lower.

--Sarah
 
I'll try to keep my post as simple as possible (thus lets consider only two US companies). These companies are US Steel and US Auto.

The US steel company is currently not profitable company if there was free trade. The US auto company is currently profitable.

Add a 30% tariff and the US steel company finally becomes profitable (saving a unprofitable company from going under). But wait, US Auto must now pay 30% more for its raw materials. Suddenly this 30% increase in car parts makes the US Auto industry unprofitable. So basically the tariff saves a failing industry but kills a successful industry. It is an either-or situation. You cannot have high steel prices for the US Steel company and low steel prices for the US Auto industry.

In my opinion I'd rather have the opposite effect: save the profitable industry and let the unprofitable one die off.

We all know that free trade is better overall for the economy. Sure the steel industry is harmed by free trade. But the auto industry, appliance Industry, construction industry, etc are all harmed drastically by 30% higher costs. The net effect is to harm hundreds of businesses just to save one failing business.

Edit: if we determine that the US steel company is needed for national security, then there are other ways to save it without harming so many other US jobs and angering so many other countries (for example we could just subsidize the US steel industry like we subsidize farming...)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top