Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
US Steel Tariffs Against China Are Working: Americans Losing Jobs, Becoming Poorer As A Result
As a result of a Section 201 (“safeguard”) investigation brought at the
behest of the U.S. steel industry, President Bush in March 2002 imposed tariffs
on imports of certain steel products for three years and one day. The tariffs,
combined with other challenges present in the marketplace at the time and in the
months that followed, boosted steel costs to the detriment of American
companies that use steel to produce goods in the United States. The resulting
negative impact included job losses for thousands of American workers.
The Consuming Industries Trade Action Coalition (CITAC) Foundation
requested a formal examination of the impact of higher steel costs on American
steel-consuming industries,1 and in particular, a quantification of employment
losses at those companies. This study employed straight-forward and widelyaccepted
regression analysis using a variety of price and employment data to
maximize the reliability of the results.2 We found that:
• 200,000 Americans lost their jobs to higher steel prices during 2002.
These lost jobs represent approximately $4 billion in lost wages from
February to November 2002.3
• One out of four (50,000) of these job losses occurred in the metal
manufacturing, machinery and equipment and transportation equipment and
parts sectors.
• Job losses escalated steadily over 2002, peaking in November (at 202,000
jobs), and slightly declining to 197,000 jobs in December.4
• More American workers lost their jobs in 2002 to higher steel prices than
the total number employed by the U.S. steel industry itself (187,500
Americans were employed by U.S. steel producers in December 2002).
In 2002, Pittsburgh Steel was just about dead, Unions didn't help,
EPA overregulation didn't either.
Not surprisingly you missed the whole point of the quote. A tariff on steel hurt every industry using steel.
Probably moreso because of Unions than the tariffs themselves.
What you wanna bet Unions called for a bunch of strikes back then?
Did you bother to read the quote or link? Don't like facts?
One thing Obama did while president was set up the C.A.R.S (Car Allowance Rebate System) system. The idea was to take older, less efficient cars off the road and stimulate new auto production in the process.
Obama used $3 billion taxpayer dollars to fund C.A.R.S. AKA "Cash for clunkers" and called it
"stimulus"
However, C.A.R.S. is a dismal failure that wastes taxpayer money, drives up the prices of new and used cars, and slows new car production.
According to research by 2 University of Delaware professors it is a net loss of $2600 per vehicle.
"With per vehicle environmental benefits
at $596 and the costs at $2,600 per ve-
hicle, the clunker program is a net drain on
society of roughly $2,000 per vehicle. Given
the approximately 700,000 vehicles in the
program, we estimate the total welfare loss to
be about $1.4 billion."
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/46555587_Is_cars_a_clunker
Prices of new and used cars are now higher for everyone thanks to less availability of used cars on the market.
"the average used car price hit a record $16,800 last year, according to a report from Edmunds.com"
Average used car price hits record high in 2014
"The deep cuts in production capacity during the restructuring of recent years, coupled with the recent rebound in demand for new cars from consumers, means that shoppers can't find the deals they once did."
Car prices at record highs - and rising
If anyone wishes to compare any auto prices between pre-C.A.R.S. and post cars, you can do so here with any make, model, and year:
Car Prices, Sales History, and Mileage on a Graph
So in effect, C.A.R.S. is an Obama program that costs everybody $2k per car, drives up the price of new and used cars, and is a net loss to everyone.
Thanks, Obama!
Whoever makes lists of Obama's "accomplishments", be sure and include this boondoggle done within the 1st 6 months of his presidency.
Progressive policy failure right here.
One thing Obama did while president was set up the C.A.R.S (Car Allowance Rebate System) system. The idea was to take older, less efficient cars off the road and stimulate new auto production in the process.
Obama used $3 billion taxpayer dollars to fund C.A.R.S. AKA "Cash for clunkers" and called it
"stimulus"
However, C.A.R.S. is a dismal failure that wastes taxpayer money, drives up the prices of new and used cars, and slows new car production.
According to research by 2 University of Delaware professors it is a net loss of $2600 per vehicle.
"With per vehicle environmental benefits
at $596 and the costs at $2,600 per ve-
hicle, the clunker program is a net drain on
society of roughly $2,000 per vehicle. Given
the approximately 700,000 vehicles in the
program, we estimate the total welfare loss to
be about $1.4 billion."
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/46555587_Is_cars_a_clunker
Prices of new and used cars are now higher for everyone thanks to less availability of used cars on the market.
"the average used car price hit a record $16,800 last year, according to a report from Edmunds.com"
Average used car price hits record high in 2014
"The deep cuts in production capacity during the restructuring of recent years, coupled with the recent rebound in demand for new cars from consumers, means that shoppers can't find the deals they once did."
Car prices at record highs - and rising
If anyone wishes to compare any auto prices between pre-C.A.R.S. and post cars, you can do so here with any make, model, and year:
Car Prices, Sales History, and Mileage on a Graph
So in effect, C.A.R.S. is an Obama program that costs everybody $2k per car, drives up the price of new and used cars, and is a net loss to everyone.
Thanks, Obama!
Whoever makes lists of Obama's "accomplishments", be sure and include this boondoggle done within the 1st 6 months of his presidency.
Progressive policy failure right here.
Just wait a little while. When the Subprime Auto Loan default crisis hits, there will be tons of repo used cars available for CHEAP!
US Steel Tariffs Against China Are Working: Americans Losing Jobs, Becoming Poorer As A Result
As a result of a Section 201 (“safeguard”) investigation brought at the
behest of the U.S. steel industry, President Bush in March 2002 imposed tariffs
on imports of certain steel products for three years and one day. The tariffs,
combined with other challenges present in the marketplace at the time and in the
months that followed, boosted steel costs to the detriment of American
companies that use steel to produce goods in the United States. The resulting
negative impact included job losses for thousands of American workers.
The Consuming Industries Trade Action Coalition (CITAC) Foundation
requested a formal examination of the impact of higher steel costs on American
steel-consuming industries,1 and in particular, a quantification of employment
losses at those companies. This study employed straight-forward and widelyaccepted
regression analysis using a variety of price and employment data to
maximize the reliability of the results.2 We found that:
• 200,000 Americans lost their jobs to higher steel prices during 2002.
These lost jobs represent approximately $4 billion in lost wages from
February to November 2002.3
• One out of four (50,000) of these job losses occurred in the metal
manufacturing, machinery and equipment and transportation equipment and
parts sectors.
• Job losses escalated steadily over 2002, peaking in November (at 202,000
jobs), and slightly declining to 197,000 jobs in December.4
• More American workers lost their jobs in 2002 to higher steel prices than
the total number employed by the U.S. steel industry itself (187,500
Americans were employed by U.S. steel producers in December 2002).
In 2002, Pittsburgh Steel was just about dead, Unions didn't help,
EPA overregulation didn't either.
Not surprisingly you missed the whole point of the quote. A tariff on steel hurt every industry using steel.
Probably moreso because of Unions than the tariffs themselves.
What you wanna bet Unions called for a bunch of strikes back then?
Did you bother to read the quote or link? Don't like facts?
"combined with other challenges present in the marketplace at the time and in the
months that followed,"
You didn't present any facts. You presented an article with no citations and no proof.
Never take anything at face value.
In 2002, Pittsburgh Steel was just about dead, Unions didn't help,
EPA overregulation didn't either.
Not surprisingly you missed the whole point of the quote. A tariff on steel hurt every industry using steel.
Probably moreso because of Unions than the tariffs themselves.
What you wanna bet Unions called for a bunch of strikes back then?
Did you bother to read the quote or link? Don't like facts?
"combined with other challenges present in the marketplace at the time and in the
months that followed,"
You didn't present any facts. You presented an article with no citations and no proof.
Never take anything at face value.
It shows all the negative effects of tariffs. Make our steel more expensive and so are all the products we make with steel. Production declines.
Not surprisingly you missed the whole point of the quote. A tariff on steel hurt every industry using steel.
Probably moreso because of Unions than the tariffs themselves.
What you wanna bet Unions called for a bunch of strikes back then?
Did you bother to read the quote or link? Don't like facts?
"combined with other challenges present in the marketplace at the time and in the
months that followed,"
You didn't present any facts. You presented an article with no citations and no proof.
Never take anything at face value.
It shows all the negative effects of tariffs. Make our steel more expensive and so are all the products we make with steel. Production declines.
Do you have anything with actual facts?
Tariffs didn't cause the Great Depression, bankers did.
Tariffs have been around since before 1800
"
The early economic history of the United States may
be divided into two periods. The first, which is in the main
a continuation of the colonial period, lasted till about the
year 1808; the embargo marks the beginning of the series of
events which closed it. The second began in 1808, and lasted
through the generation following. It was during the second
period that the most decided attempt was made to apply
protection to young industries in the United States, and with
this period we are chiefly concerned."
https://mises.org/system/tdf/Tariff History of the United States_4.pdf?file=1&type=document
Post another then, you may want to read the link I posted first, though. I will be using that as a reference.
On another note, it looks like Congress used to attach pork to tariffs back in the day the way they do to bills now.
Tariffs were a main cause of The Civil War.
At this point in time, where domestic production is vacuous, tariffs will stimulate making things at home.
Post another then, you may want to read the link I posted first, though. I will be using that as a reference.
On another note, it looks like Congress used to attach pork to tariffs back in the day the way they do to bills now.
Tariffs were a main cause of The Civil War.
At this point in time, where domestic production is vacuous, tariffs will stimulate making things at home.
So you don't have a single example in their long history of them ever increasing domestic production. I didn't think so.
Post another then, you may want to read the link I posted first, though. I will be using that as a reference.
On another note, it looks like Congress used to attach pork to tariffs back in the day the way they do to bills now.
Tariffs were a main cause of The Civil War.
At this point in time, where domestic production is vacuous, tariffs will stimulate making things at home.
So you don't have a single example in their long history of them ever increasing domestic production. I didn't think so.
I've never really studied it, but I'm not about to begin on a Saturday evening. I notice you haven't posted anything but your weak correlation ≠ causation between Tariffs and The Great Depression.
That's fail for you. Much of that was land speculation, sound familiar?
Post another then, you may want to read the link I posted first, though. I will be using that as a reference.
On another note, it looks like Congress used to attach pork to tariffs back in the day the way they do to bills now.
Tariffs were a main cause of The Civil War.
At this point in time, where domestic production is vacuous, tariffs will stimulate making things at home.
So you don't have a single example in their long history of them ever increasing domestic production. I didn't think so.
I've never really studied it, but I'm not about to begin on a Saturday evening. I notice you haven't posted anything but your weak correlation ≠ causation between Tariffs and The Great Depression.
That's fail for you. Much of that was land speculation, sound familiar?
Lets begin with this: Why do you think Trump's proposed tariffs are good or bad?
Lets begin with this: Why do you think Trump's proposed tariffs are good or bad?
I think they are good because they will ease the tax burden on the citizens and promote domestic manufacturing.
Yes some goods will cost more.
'86 Toshiba: $490 (19") <price of color TV in 1985
TV Set Prices
TV is not a necessary item, water, food, and shelter are.
Lets begin with this: Why do you think Trump's proposed tariffs are good or bad?
I think they are good because they will ease the tax burden on the citizens and promote domestic manufacturing.
Yes some goods will cost more.
'86 Toshiba: $490 (19") <price of color TV in 1985
TV Set Prices
TV is not a necessary item, water, food, and shelter are.
Many people think of tariffs as a tool used to protect our industry by making foreign products more expensive. I think Trump wants to use it as tool to make our product cheaper on foreign markets. It may not make much sense, but I think that's the case.
One thing Obama did while president was set up the C.A.R.S (Car Allowance Rebate System) system. The idea was to take older, less efficient cars off the road and stimulate new auto production in the process.
Obama used $3 billion taxpayer dollars to fund C.A.R.S. AKA "Cash for clunkers" and called it
"stimulus"
However, C.A.R.S. is a dismal failure that wastes taxpayer money, drives up the prices of new and used cars, and slows new car production.
According to research by 2 University of Delaware professors it is a net loss of $2600 per vehicle.
"With per vehicle environmental benefits
at $596 and the costs at $2,600 per ve-
hicle, the clunker program is a net drain on
society of roughly $2,000 per vehicle. Given
the approximately 700,000 vehicles in the
program, we estimate the total welfare loss to
be about $1.4 billion."
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/46555587_Is_cars_a_clunker
Prices of new and used cars are now higher for everyone thanks to less availability of used cars on the market.
"the average used car price hit a record $16,800 last year, according to a report from Edmunds.com"
Average used car price hits record high in 2014
"The deep cuts in production capacity during the restructuring of recent years, coupled with the recent rebound in demand for new cars from consumers, means that shoppers can't find the deals they once did."
Car prices at record highs - and rising
If anyone wishes to compare any auto prices between pre-C.A.R.S. and post cars, you can do so here with any make, model, and year:
Car Prices, Sales History, and Mileage on a Graph
So in effect, C.A.R.S. is an Obama program that costs everybody $2k per car, drives up the price of new and used cars, and is a net loss to everyone.
Thanks, Obama!
Whoever makes lists of Obama's "accomplishments", be sure and include this boondoggle done within the 1st 6 months of his presidency.
Progressive policy failure right here.
Lets begin with this: Why do you think Trump's proposed tariffs are good or bad?
I think they are good because they will ease the tax burden on the citizens and promote domestic manufacturing.
Yes some goods will cost more.
'86 Toshiba: $490 (19") <price of color TV in 1985
TV Set Prices
TV is not a necessary item, water, food, and shelter are.
Many people think of tariffs as a tool used to protect our industry by making foreign products more expensive. I think Trump wants to use it as tool to make our product cheaper on foreign markets. It may not make much sense, but I think that's the case.
I think it's time to scrap NAFTA and go with a different plan.
Lets begin with this: Why do you think Trump's proposed tariffs are good or bad?
I think they are good because they will ease the tax burden on the citizens and promote domestic manufacturing.
Yes some goods will cost more.
'86 Toshiba: $490 (19") <price of color TV in 1985
TV Set Prices
TV is not a necessary item, water, food, and shelter are.
Many people think of tariffs as a tool used to protect our industry by making foreign products more expensive. I think Trump wants to use it as tool to make our product cheaper on foreign markets. It may not make much sense, but I think that's the case.
I think it's time to scrap NAFTA and go with a different plan.
I am not talking about just NAFTA, I am talking about rotten deals that US economy got all over the world.
Tariffs are needed in order to make those deals better and make our products more affordable abroad.
