How do these manufacturing scenarios rank?

[RealDave]

1) A us manufacturer uses US labor & all us made raw materials

2) A us Manufacturer using US labor but imports some raw materials.

3) A Foreign company with a factor in the US that uses all US raw materials

4) A foreign company with a US factory that uses some imported raw materials

5) I US company manufacturing over seas & importing those products to the US

6) A foreign company exporting products to the US

Obviously, we like 1 but what after that?

I'm thinking they are in order as written as beneficial to our country.

When the imported steel is now more expensive, it raises the pricing on these company's goods in scenario 2 & 4 & this hurts those companies & their employees.

Does it help those in 1 & 3? Maybe but years to expand to help before help to those whose jobs were lost.

I am not even talking about those who will be hurt by retaliatory tariffs like our farmers and manufacturers like Harley Davidson.

When we hurt companies in scenarios 2 & 4, we lose American jobs. Manufacturing jobs, distributor jobs, & any job that supports the communities where these lay-offs will happen.

The steel industry in this country is where it is due to their own actions starting 50 years ago. Why are all these people suffering now because of it? If US steel makers supply 70% of our needs, is it worth a trade war to boost that maybe 10%? And why are we helping an industry that basically self destructed years ago?

I have a competitor that claims his raw materials are made here in the US. But they are made by a Russian owned mill here in the US & some of those profits go back to Russia. I'd rather see a US company manufacturing goods that import 20-30% of their steel & their profits stay here.

 

[bendog]

1) A us manufacturer uses US labor & all us made raw materials

2) A us Manufacturer using US labor but imports some raw materials.

3) A Foreign company with a factor in the US that uses all US raw materials

4) A foreign company with a US factory that uses some imported raw materials

5) I US company manufacturing over seas & importing those products to the US

6) A foreign company exporting products to the US

Obviously, we like 1 but what after that?

I'm thinking they are in order as written as beneficial to our country.

When the imported steel is now more expensive, it raises the pricing on these company's goods in scenario 2 & 4 & this hurts those companies & their employees.

Does it help those in 1 & 3? Maybe but years to expand to help before help to those whose jobs were lost.

I am not even talking about those who will be hurt by retaliatory tariffs like our farmers and manufacturers like Harley Davidson.

When we hurt companies in scenarios 2 & 4, we lose American jobs. Manufacturing jobs, distributor jobs, & any job that supports the communities where these lay-offs will happen.

The steel industry in this country is where it is due to their own actions starting 50 years ago. Why are all these people suffering now because of it? If US steel makers supply 70% of our needs, is it worth a trade war to boost that maybe 10%? And why are we helping an industry that basically self destructed years ago?

I have a competitor that claims his raw materials are made here in the US. But they are made by a Russian owned mill here in the US & some of those profits go back to Russia. I'd rather see a US company manufacturing goods that import 20-30% of their steel & their profits stay here.

I think 3 works for us, but I'm not aware of any product being mftred with just US material. But I don't doubt you.

From what I've read, GM and Ford cars will see price increases somewhere around 400-600 from steel and aluminum. And since our steel factories and not just inefficient but not presently capable of converting mined ore into steel, the cost increase will be unavoidable. At least for years until the steel industry could regain what it lost since the 70s and 80s, and by then Trump will be gone.

I just wonder how much scenario4 will hurt us.

 

[NightFox]

I'm thinking they are in order as written as beneficial to our country.

I'm thinking that your understanding of comparative advantage is incomplete.

In a nutshell, you don't want to waste resources trying to produce things that somebody else (i.e. in this case some other country) can produce at a lower opportunity cost. By allocating resources to production where you have the lowest opportunity cost (comparative advantage) and trading for things where you don't, both parties realize greater benefit than they would by not trading with each other.

"Trade creates wealth"

 

[RealDave]

I'm thinking they are in order as written as beneficial to our country.

I'm thinking that your understanding of comparative advantage is incomplete.

In a nutshell, you don't want to waste resources trying to produce things that somebody else (i.e. in this case some other country) can produce at a lower opportunity cost. By allocating resources to production where you have the lowest opportunity cost (comparative advantage) and trading for things where you don't, both parties realize greater benefit than they would by not trading with each other.

"Trade creates wealth"

We should be able to produce steel at a rate comparable to the EU, Canada, and Japan & most industrialized nations. Right?

 

[bendog]

I'm thinking they are in order as written as beneficial to our country.

I'm thinking that your understanding of comparative advantage is incomplete.

In a nutshell, you don't want to waste resources trying to produce things that somebody else (i.e. in this case some other country) can produce at a lower opportunity cost. By allocating resources to production where you have the lowest opportunity cost (comparative advantage) and trading for things where you don't, both parties realize greater benefit than they would by not trading with each other.

"Trade creates wealth"

We should be able to produce steel at a rate comparable to the EU, Canada, and Japan & most industrialized nations. Right?

(jumping in). I think not, at least not with the strong dollar. There are two means of producing steel. integrated mills - what we used to think of with the giant furnaces. Labor intensive.

And the more recent steel mills that work with recycled steel. That's what the US has in terms of job growth v. job loss .. as integrated mills shut down.

Analysts doubt tariffs will level playing field for US steel companies

It's Not China Or Trade That Killed The Steel Jobs But Recycling

The strong dollar is a factor, and that is exacerbated with tariffs. And the Germans have provided workers with healthcare more cheaply than we have. I think the substance of the articles is simply that the US will continue in recycling but actually restarting blast furnaces ... prolly not.

 

[RealDave]

I'm thinking they are in order as written as beneficial to our country.

I'm thinking that your understanding of comparative advantage is incomplete.

In a nutshell, you don't want to waste resources trying to produce things that somebody else (i.e. in this case some other country) can produce at a lower opportunity cost. By allocating resources to production where you have the lowest opportunity cost (comparative advantage) and trading for things where you don't, both parties realize greater benefit than they would by not trading with each other.

"Trade creates wealth"

We should be able to produce steel at a rate comparable to the EU, Canada, and Japan & most industrialized nations. Right?

(jumping in). I think not, at least not with the strong dollar. There are two means of producing steel. integrated mills - what we used to think of with the giant furnaces. Labor intensive.

And the more recent steel mills that work with recycled steel. That's what the US has in terms of job growth v. job loss .. as integrated mills shut down.

Analysts doubt tariffs will level playing field for US steel companies

It's Not China Or Trade That Killed The Steel Jobs But Recycling

The strong dollar is a factor, and that is exacerbated with tariffs. And the Germans have provided workers with healthcare more cheaply than we have. I think the substance of the articles is simply that the US will continue in recycling but actually restarting blast furnaces ... prolly not.

As of the late 80's, only two new mills were built since 1950. Most were old outdated, labor intensive mills that produced a rather crappy product.

 

[bendog]

I'm thinking they are in order as written as beneficial to our country.

I'm thinking that your understanding of comparative advantage is incomplete.

In a nutshell, you don't want to waste resources trying to produce things that somebody else (i.e. in this case some other country) can produce at a lower opportunity cost. By allocating resources to production where you have the lowest opportunity cost (comparative advantage) and trading for things where you don't, both parties realize greater benefit than they would by not trading with each other.

"Trade creates wealth"

We should be able to produce steel at a rate comparable to the EU, Canada, and Japan & most industrialized nations. Right?

(jumping in). I think not, at least not with the strong dollar. There are two means of producing steel. integrated mills - what we used to think of with the giant furnaces. Labor intensive.

And the more recent steel mills that work with recycled steel. That's what the US has in terms of job growth v. job loss .. as integrated mills shut down.

Analysts doubt tariffs will level playing field for US steel companies

It's Not China Or Trade That Killed The Steel Jobs But Recycling

The strong dollar is a factor, and that is exacerbated with tariffs. And the Germans have provided workers with healthcare more cheaply than we have. I think the substance of the articles is simply that the US will continue in recycling but actually restarting blast furnaces ... prolly not.

As of the late 80's, only two new mills were built since 1950. Most were old outdated, labor intensive mills that produced a rather crappy product.

yeah I remember that back in the 1980s. People were complaining the Japanese had better steel mills, since we built them new ones after WWII and we still had the ones that won the war.

I don't really have an answer for this ... aside from market economics. We recycle steel in mini malls very competitively. It's probably not enough for all of our steel needs. And brakes on cars generally suck unless you pay for better rotors on aftermarket add ons. And I have a car manufactured in Japan. My wife does too, but her brakes are damn stout.

 

[NightFox]

I'm thinking they are in order as written as beneficial to our country.

I'm thinking that your understanding of comparative advantage is incomplete.

In a nutshell, you don't want to waste resources trying to produce things that somebody else (i.e. in this case some other country) can produce at a lower opportunity cost. By allocating resources to production where you have the lowest opportunity cost (comparative advantage) and trading for things where you don't, both parties realize greater benefit than they would by not trading with each other.

"Trade creates wealth"

We should be able to produce steel at a rate comparable to the EU, Canada, and Japan & most industrialized nations. Right?

No, that's why a vast portion of steel production has moved to other countries, those countries have a comparative advantage in the production of steel. It's natural that production of goods and services will gravitate to the most efficient model. It's not a bad thing, producing goods and services that you're the most efficient at producing and trade for that which you aren't enriches everybody as long as you don't let yourself get screwed on the terms of trade, the U.S. has let itself get screwed on terms in many instances, some of the reasons were sound and some not so much.

That of course doesn't mean we couldn't develop a comparative advantage in the production of steel but it takes more than tariffs and quotas to do it, there are many variables that go into it such as labor costs & availability, the availability of land (natural resources), supply chains, the availability of technology, regulatory and tax considerations, etc.., The question that should be asked is; are the negative consequences and risks associated with doing so worth it? Asking that question is what will define the opportunity cost of doing what's necessary to gain a comparative advantage to make sense to produce more steel in the U.S. rather than just trading for it.

 

[RealDave]

In the 70's & 80's, we were trying to compete with mills that took 18 man hours per ton with newer mills that used 8. (Numbers may be off but there was this huge differential).

In 2000, my employers went from purchasing from US steel to buying half a European mill and their rejection rate dropped from 15% to 2%.

Crappy quality & Outdated mills as companies like US Steel used steel profits to divest from the Steel market.

The US steel industry got what it deserved.

Our government did nothing. No incentives, No plan. They let it happen.

The only real question with Trump's tariffs is whether those foreign countries will lose more jobs that we do.

Trump has zero comprehension of manufacturing & the global marketplace. He thinks he knows more any anyone in the last 40 years & it turns out he doesn't know shit. He can't grasp that when farmers lose their farms to development because Trump fucked their markets, that these farms are gone forever.

It begs the question, who is dumber, Trump & those that support him.

 

[NightFox]

Our government did nothing. No incentives, No plan. They let it happen.

.

FYI, it's not up to government to plan the economy or "save" any particular industry, the fact that it keeps trying to do it is the primary driver of the misallocation of capital that causes many of the cyclical issues and growth limitations that we have faced.

Trump's protectionism is just continuing the trend and likely won't yield the positive results he claims he's looking to achieve. On the bright side at least he's trying to deal with the long term issues created by lopsided terms of trade, which is unusual for anybody in Washington, unfortunately IMHO he's going about it in the wrong way. In my estimation he would have been far more effective to work out the trade issues with our NAFTA partners first, then work with the Europeans to balance the terms of trade and then deal with Asia (China & Japan primarily) as a united front, as it stands now his strategy has pitted us in multiple trade confrontations with almost EVERYBODY and thus the end result will be missed wealth creation opportunities for EVERYBODY.

 

[RealDave]

Governments must guard against the "free" market taking a path towards future destruction - whether economic, environmental or political.

Allowing the destruction of our steel industry was short sighted & put us where we are today.

The government should have stepped in with incentives to encourage US steel producers to invest in new mills with new technology.

The "free" market will only lead to destruction as this moment greed rules over long term investment.

 

[NightFox]

Governments must guard against the "free" market taking a path towards future destruction - whether economic, environmental or political.

Allowing the destruction of our steel industry was short sighted & put us where we are today.

The government should have stepped in with incentives to encourage US steel producers to invest in new mills with new technology.

The "free" market will only lead to destruction as this moment greed rules over long term investment.

Now that we've devolved into baseless free market bashing and economic central planning pom-pom waiving, another pointless thread is born.

Oh well, I guess it was to be expected.....

 

[bendog]

Our government did nothing. No incentives, No plan. They let it happen.

.

FYI, it's not up to government to plan the economy or "save" any particular industry, the fact that it keeps trying to do it is the primary driver of the misallocation of capital that causes many of the cyclical issues and growth limitations that we have faced.

Trump's protectionism is just continuing the trend and likely won't yield the positive results he claims he's looking to achieve. On the bright side at least he's trying to deal with the long term issues created by lopsided terms of trade, which is unusual for anybody in Washington, unfortunately IMHO he's going about it in the wrong way. In my estimation he would have been far more effective to work out the trade issues with our NAFTA partners first, then work with the Europeans to balance the terms of trade and then deal with Asia (China & Japan primarily) as a united front, as it stands now his strategy has pitted us in multiple trade confrontations with almost EVERYBODY and thus the end result will be missed wealth creation opportunities for EVERYBODY.

Partially true, but if you're counting on private actors to set interest rates, environmental protections, build infrastructure and decide int'l national trade disputes .. count me out.

 

[BluesLegend]

I'll make it simple, if your country is not a leading manufacturer of goods your country is in a death spiral. Remember how all these manufacturing jobs were going to be replaced by tech jobs, yeah now all the tech jobs are going to India, China, Mexico, etc.

PLUS many of the goods manufactured in China and India, the quality is total crap. Okay they cost half the price but its worthless junk.

 

[OKTexas]

1) A us manufacturer uses US labor & all us made raw materials

2) A us Manufacturer using US labor but imports some raw materials.

3) A Foreign company with a factor in the US that uses all US raw materials

4) A foreign company with a US factory that uses some imported raw materials

5) I US company manufacturing over seas & importing those products to the US

6) A foreign company exporting products to the US

Obviously, we like 1 but what after that?

I'm thinking they are in order as written as beneficial to our country.

When the imported steel is now more expensive, it raises the pricing on these company's goods in scenario 2 & 4 & this hurts those companies & their employees.

Does it help those in 1 & 3? Maybe but years to expand to help before help to those whose jobs were lost.

I am not even talking about those who will be hurt by retaliatory tariffs like our farmers and manufacturers like Harley Davidson.

When we hurt companies in scenarios 2 & 4, we lose American jobs. Manufacturing jobs, distributor jobs, & any job that supports the communities where these lay-offs will happen.

The steel industry in this country is where it is due to their own actions starting 50 years ago. Why are all these people suffering now because of it? If US steel makers supply 70% of our needs, is it worth a trade war to boost that maybe 10%? And why are we helping an industry that basically self destructed years ago?

I have a competitor that claims his raw materials are made here in the US. But they are made by a Russian owned mill here in the US & some of those profits go back to Russia. I'd rather see a US company manufacturing goods that import 20-30% of their steel & their profits stay here.

So where was this attitude when GM and Chrysler were dying at their own hand? Me thinks I'm smelling some hypocrisy here.


.

 

[my2¢]

With inclusion of sub-components in category of raw materials, in the original list I would only switch positions of #2 and #3. Thinking about it, even limiting it to raw materials I'd do likewise.

1) A us manufacturer uses US labor & all us made raw materials

3) A Foreign company with a factor in the US that uses all US raw materials

2) A us Manufacturer using US labor but imports some raw materials.
​

Honda for example has over 624 U.S. suppliers located in 32 states

.

Source found here
​

 

[RealDave]

1) A us manufacturer uses US labor & all us made raw materials

2) A us Manufacturer using US labor but imports some raw materials.

3) A Foreign company with a factor in the US that uses all US raw materials

4) A foreign company with a US factory that uses some imported raw materials

5) I US company manufacturing over seas & importing those products to the US

6) A foreign company exporting products to the US

Obviously, we like 1 but what after that?

I'm thinking they are in order as written as beneficial to our country.

When the imported steel is now more expensive, it raises the pricing on these company's goods in scenario 2 & 4 & this hurts those companies & their employees.

Does it help those in 1 & 3? Maybe but years to expand to help before help to those whose jobs were lost.

I am not even talking about those who will be hurt by retaliatory tariffs like our farmers and manufacturers like Harley Davidson.

When we hurt companies in scenarios 2 & 4, we lose American jobs. Manufacturing jobs, distributor jobs, & any job that supports the communities where these lay-offs will happen.

The steel industry in this country is where it is due to their own actions starting 50 years ago. Why are all these people suffering now because of it? If US steel makers supply 70% of our needs, is it worth a trade war to boost that maybe 10%? And why are we helping an industry that basically self destructed years ago?

I have a competitor that claims his raw materials are made here in the US. But they are made by a Russian owned mill here in the US & some of those profits go back to Russia. I'd rather see a US company manufacturing goods that import 20-30% of their steel & their profits stay here.

So where was this attitude when GM and Chrysler were dying at their own hand? Me thinks I'm smelling some hypocrisy here.


.

Different administrations. Obama was not about to lose a segment of our auto manufacturing because of the Bush recession. Economic times were finishing off these manufacturers.

 

[RealDave]

I'll make it simple, if your country is not a leading manufacturer of goods your country is in a death spiral. Remember how all these manufacturing jobs were going to be replaced by tech jobs, yeah now all the tech jobs are going to India, China, Mexico, etc.

PLUS many of the goods manufactured in China and India, the quality is total crap. Okay they cost half the price but its worthless junk.

China has a different attitude. Here in the US, we buy products with hoigh confidence thatthey are what they should be.

In China, it is buyer beware.

"Oh, you didn't ask if we put poison in your dog food"

 

[RealDave]

With inclusion of sub-components in category of raw materials, in the original list I would only switch positions of #2 and #3. Thinking about it, even limiting it to raw materials I'd do likewise.

1) A us manufacturer uses US labor & all us made raw materials

3) A Foreign company with a factor in the US that uses all US raw materials

2) A us Manufacturer using US labor but imports some raw materials.
​

Honda for example has over 624 U.S. suppliers located in 32 states

.
View attachment 202658

Source found here
​

I would agree with the components. I guess I was thinking more of steel & aluminum for raw materials.

 

[BluesLegend]

I'll make it simple, if your country is not a leading manufacturer of goods your country is in a death spiral. Remember how all these manufacturing jobs were going to be replaced by tech jobs, yeah now all the tech jobs are going to India, China, Mexico, etc.

PLUS many of the goods manufactured in China and India, the quality is total crap. Okay they cost half the price but its worthless junk.

China has a different attitude. Here in the US, we buy products with hoigh confidence thatthey are what they should be.

In China, it is buyer beware.

"Oh, you didn't ask if we put poison in your dog food"

China manufactures SHIT after they blatantly copy and steal from us. Japan is also pissed at China for doing this. SHIT counterfeits of high quality Japanese products. Does that sound like China is engaged in fair trade?