March 23rd 2002

  Buy Issue 2629

Articles from this issue:

COVER STORY: The US steel decision

Ansett's collapse highlights failure of deregulation

Government's currency gamble goes bad

Straws in the Wind: All you need is love / What's in a name?

NSW Anglican Bishops support stem cell research ... but not at the cost of human life

Media: Courageously un-PC / Sudden 'enthusiasm' for Crean

Captive market (letter)

Misdirected (letter)

US steel (letter)

Show trials (letter)

Adult stem cells: the better option

Comment: Enron's collapse - the net widens

ASIA: How should the West respond to the terrorist threat?

Books available from News Weekly Books

Books promotion page

steel (letter)

by Greg Byrne

News Weekly, March 23, 2002


George Bush has given the opponents of free trade the weapon they had been waiting for: proof that when it comes to the crunch the US is no less protectionist than anyone else and that countries like Australia practising free trade are on their own.

It would seem that the US steel industry is inefficient and that other nations are cheaper and better. So that Bush is protecting an industry that can't stand on its own two feet.

This is only putting off the evil day. Eventually US steel firms will be like Ansett crashing disastrously with many good people thrown on the scrap heap. There are many good steel plants around the world and eventually market forces will assert themselves and inefficient local plants whose only justification for existing is employment will go to the wall.

Like Australia the US is not much good at manufacturing except in the high tech areas where its new technology gives it the edge. But in footware, clothing, durables and automobiles expect plant closures. Let us remember that industrial plants exist to provide consumer goods, not jobs.

Australians are seeing themselves as the losers in this, which to some extent they are, but I would point out that American consumers are the losers, as are US firms which use steel as a raw material.

News Weekly will probably say that countries with industries like US steel are generating income and revenue while other nations that practise free trade are disadvantaged. However I would point out that eventually the final crash will be more disastrous. If steel companies provide expensive new plants and technology that will be more shareholders' money that will have to be written off.

With an industry like that (US Steel) you don't want to encourage the investment of scarce investment capital in an industry that can only sell its products locally and at low profit.

Greg Byrne,
Rowville, Vic

Join email list

Join e-newsletter list

Your cart has 0 items

Subscribe to NewsWeekly

Research Papers

Trending articles

COVER STORY Don't grieve dumped TPP; rather, thank Trump

ENVIRONMENT U.S. Congress to investigate shonky climate report

COVER STORY Money flows freely to fuel anti-coal campaign

ENVIRONMENT Ignore claims that Antarctic ice sheet will melt away

EDITORIAL What future has Senator Cory Bernardi?

EDITORIAL Commission report demonstrates old saying about statistics

ELECTRICITY Green policies threaten energy security and jobs

News and views from around the world

Scientists criticise "hottest year on record" hype (James Varney)

States, territories slash school funding by $100 million (Stephanie Balogh)

Confirm Judge Gorsuch to the Supreme Court (Stephen Mosher)

Rescuing Governor Ahok (Bob Lowry)

Future shock: What happens when robots take our jobs? (Adam Creighton)

President Trump: Protect religious freedom (Ryan Anderson)

China to crack down further on "cult" activities (Ben Blanchard)

Polish president rules out gay marriage (Radio Poland)

U.S. state legislatures sign 334 laws in five years to restrict abortion (Micaiah Bilger)

Clinton, Trump and the politics of the English language (Ben Reinhard)

© Copyright 2017
Last Modified:
March 16, 2017, 10:40 am