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

SAME-SEX MARRIAGE Memo to Shorten, Wong: LGBTIs don't want it

COVER STORY Shorten takes low road to defeat marriage plebiscite

COVER STORY Reaper mows down first child in the Low Countries

SAME-SEX MARRIAGE Kevin Andrews: defend marriage on principles

CANBERRA OBSERVED Coalition still gridlocked despite foreign success

COVER STORY Bill Shorten imposes his political will on the nation

ENVIRONMENT More pseudo science from climate

News and views from around the world

Menzies, myth and modern Australia (Jonathan Pincus)

China’s utterly disgraceful human-rights record

Japan’s cure for childlessness: a robot (Marcus Roberts)

SOGI laws: a subversive response to a non-existent problem (James Gottry)

Shakespeare, Cervantes and the romance of the real (R.V. Young)

That’s not funny: PC and humour (Anthony Sacramone)

Refugees celebrate capture of terror suspect

The Spectre of soft totalitarianism (Daniel Mahoney)

American dream more dead than you thought (Eric Levitz)

Think the world is overcrowded: These 10 maps show why you’re wrong (Max Galka)

© Copyright 2011
Last Modified:
November 14, 2015, 11:18 am