Tarriffs on goods from china?

Nobody is commenting on this NYT article from
friday so I will pipe up on it.

"Ruling Could Lead to Tarriffs on Chinese Goods"

quote

...a federal judge on thursday dismissed a bid
by china to block the bush administration from
from imposing tarriffs on chinese goods produced
by heavily subsidized [prc] government companies.

The ruling... clears the way for the commerce
department to decide whether to impose the
tarriff barriers on one specific product, high
gloss paper, as early as friday.

The effect of the ruling could be even more
far reaching. If the commerce department raises
tarriffs on paper... it could set a precedent for
duties to be imposed on steel, machinery,
plastics, furniture, and other goods from china.

Executives AND (emphasis mine) union employees
in these industries say they may seek duties on
the grounds that their chinese competitors have
devastated american companies and thrown
americans out of work.

....

The commerce department announced last year it would decide by april 2 whether to revise its
longstanding ban on imposing duties to counter
act industry subsidies in NONMARKET ECONOMIES
(emphasis mine). Such a step would break with a
precedent established about 20 years ago.

(regan era I would say)

Duties at present can be imposed on products
exported from these countries if "dumping" can
be proved ... but these anti-dumping duties are
small compared with those under a separate
regulation against subidies.

In the 1980s the federal government adopted the
rational that it was impossible to tell what was
a subsidy in a NONMARKET ECONOMY (emphasis mine)
like china's closing off the possibility of ever
imposing anti-subsidy duties. Last year the
commerce department said it would review the
the ruling and make a new determination this
year.

Congressional leaders have, meanwhile, vowed to
pass legislation to force the commerce department
to impose its own duties if it refuses to do so
on its own.

end quote

This was a ruling by a federal judge Gregory
W. Carmen sitting on the US court of
international Trade in new york.

I've been quite guilty of political meanderings
on this sub-board so this is one that's right
down the middle of the subject alley....

Jim

Well, I think we've discovered one industry which hasn't been given too much investment money from US multinationals. Coated Paper.

Gene

I'd like to know what duties have ever done to protect the small manufacturer: the government gets rich while you go out of business, or what?

I was thinking somewhat about this recently, when contemplating "investing" in a local ethanol production facility. I suppose that the original company will likely fail to turn a profit, especially when the public finds out what lousy mileage they get with diluted gasoline, but I can be damn sure, that the government will take the ethanol and tax it for fuel, extract the fuel tax out of my sorry ass as I drive to work to make some more money to cover the losses of my dead end investment in the ethanol plant.

But, I'm not bitter or cynical about government for our 'common good' or 'saving the environment'

GeneH

Well, I think we've discovered one industry which hasn't been given too much investment money from US multinationals. Coated Paper.

Click to expand...

Ah, it has started. The free trader back-lash to tariffs. Didn't take long.

So GeneH, you are now an expert on the U.S. coated paper industry? All of this worldly wisdom wasted on this forum. You know where you belong? On a tariff commission testifying to the court all of your grand knowledge about the waste of the U.S. coated paper industry. Here, brush up on your paper industry history:

U.S. Paper Industry History

"Maine was making more pulp and paper than ever before. However, Maine's smaller, older mills had to change in order to compete with the new mills in Maine and elsewhere. Some mills shifted to specialty papers, while others upgraded their machines to run more efficiently. Other mills that did not make these investments were forced to close. Maine retained its position as the second largest paper producing state, but the competition was relentless."

"Recently competition has come from places far more distant than Massachusetts, New York, Wisconsin or Canada. Off shore competition started in Europe, where many new mills and upgraded facilities were completed in the 1980s and 1990s. Then Latin America jumped in-aided by a vast forest resource of fast growing trees Brazil and Chile built large new pulping facilities, causing a decrease in U.S. pulp production since 1995."

"New paper capacity is now shifting to Asia. While no new mills have been built in the U.S. for many years, many new mills are under construction in China, Korea, Indonesia and across the globe. These new mills are larger and faster than those in the U.S. In most cases the cost of labor is much cheaper where the new mills are being built. As a result pulp and paper prices continue to decline.

Hey GeneH, isn't that what U.S. industry has been saying all along? You pit us against countries with no labour protection, no environmental protection, currency manipulation, foreign trade barriers and wallah, bye-bye American industry.

Plus we put an effective 30% tax burden on the American worker while giving imports only a 1% tax burden and you have the recipe for disaster.

Look forward to your testimony before the tariff court, should be enlightening.

HuFlungDung

I'd like to know what duties have ever done to protect the small manufacturer: the government gets rich while you go out of business, or what?

Click to expand...

HuFungDung, how small do you consider small? How about 165 employees?

Ever hear of the American toy industry?

How about Nylint toys, which collectors consider to be some of the finest metal toys ever made?

"A handful of employees watch as 50 people bid on equipment at the bankrupt Rockford toy company. By ALEX GARY Rockford Register Star ROCKFORD - From stamping presses and metalworking tools to adding machines and office chairs, the guts of Nylint's toymaking operations were sold off bit by bit Thursday. The family-owned company, founded in 1938 as a tool-and-die shop and converted to a toy company in 1946, filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection in January, 2001."

The American toy industry has been devastated by Chinese imports as we lifted the tariffs off Chinese toys and small American toy manufacturers were killed off.

Today about 80% of all toys sold in America are made in China. Little Mom and Pop companies that made models, toys, dolls, Christmas trees, ornaments, etc. have been murdered by our free trade policy of dumping a 30% tax burden on Americans while giving the Chinese a 1% tax rate.

Now if only our forum members could learn to do a little research before they post blather backed by nothing but personal opinion, we might have a real discussion about tariffs.

Steve

I believe that probably most products have a make or break price point. For example, if the goods are $19.95, you can sell a million, if the price is $29.95 you can only sell 100,000 units.

Talking about making generalizations, its fine to whine about someone else 'breaking into your market' with cut rate goods that stimulate a buying rush because the competition has broken the reluctance of the buyers. However, all those sales do not belong to your inefficient company that cannot manufacture at a level to make a profit at the lower price point.

By coddling home industry with tariffs, you have no idea of what inefficiency you are subsidizing. You also have no idea what the real consumption would be if the price is right.

Tariffs might look like an answer in hindsight, but once it becomes known that someone, somewhere can produce a product of good quality at a price that beats yours, and a tariff makes their product the same price as yours, your market has just been halved, because the tariff did not kill off the competition.

In the meantime, the government coffers fatten with tariffs, which represents your lost profits, and what does that really get you? Zippo.

I think the interesting part of the article
(and there was another one, in friday's paper
which I did not read, on the front page) is that
they are making a distinction from the US
economy and china's economy, with the term
"non-market economy" which is to say that
industry in china seems to be subsidized by
various factors in that country.

Those subsidies would seem to include direct
government financial assistance, convict labor,
and child labor.

If the PRC government gives companies money so
they can undercut US price levels, that would
seem to be a true non-market economy and as
such would justify, in my mind, a tarriff to
level the playing field.

The court seems to agree with me.

Jim

You know, I'm a little confused about tariffs in general.
Really do not want to put my bet on one horse or the other, just curious.
Let's say I'm a manufacturer of something. The product I make is costing me $100, including material, labor, electricity, etc. etc., AND the taxes associated with the mfg. process. When done, I mark up the product to $200. SO at the end, my gross profit is $100/.
Let's say that a foreign company makes the same product, same cost, same profit margin.
At the end of the day we both have $100 to account for with regard to income tax.
I pay the US gov. the INCOME tax portion of that $100, whatever it is.
The other co. pays the INCOME tax portion of his profit to his respective country, also whatever that may be.

So, my question is this. Should we apply the tariff based on the $100 profit made here, or the difference between the foreign tax rate and ours?
How about the loss of revenue to both myself and the US gov, whenever a consumer is buying the foreign product, thereby eliminating my profit and the govt's tax entitlement?

Please, do not read anything into this, I am in no way advocating higher/lower tariffs, closing or restricting foreign products, giving subsidies one way or another. This is simply my confusion about the age-old issue of tariffs, which has been with us from very early on of history. It has nothing to do with the US, EU, China or any other region explicitly, rather it is a GLOBAL isse, now even more than ever.

So to state again, I truly do not know what is the proper solution, but apparently many others don't either. Certainly strictly domestic manufacturers want higher tariffs to protect their margins, strictly exporters want lower intenational tariffs for the same reason, while those who do both want the best of both.
Quite obvious that not all wins, but who should? How? Against which countries?

Tariffs are no Good.
Solution is simple but neither Repub or Dems want it.

Eliminate all income taxes, Soc. Sec., Unemployment Tax, IRS, No more Employer paid Health Ins. In short eliminate all tax on private and Corp entities in the US. Replace with a National Sales Tax. It may end up being 20-25%.
But it would put US Manufactures on a much more level playing feild. It would reduce export costs. Why should All US Manufatures alone pay for benefits to US citizens when any manufacture in the world can sell here. Should'nt anyone selling here help pay for the costs of anyone living here. They are benefitng thru added sales. Why shouldn't the US consumer benefit from this?

This would solve many problems in this country and help our country remain strong in the world.

Whats really interesting is to observe the real world effects of this tariff.
We talk about putting a tariff on coated paper from China.
Now realistically, how much money will the Government earn in tariffs on coated paper? A few hundred grand a year, max.

And how much more coated paper will american suppliers sell, assuming that cutrate Chinese coated paper now costs 11% more ( I think that is the tariff percentage being discussed).
Maybe a bit, but realistically, if American costs are so much more, the additional cost of the tariff will probably not make much difference in the cost disparity.

BUT- as soon as this was announced, the stock market dipped- potentially billions of dollars was lost by american stock owners and american companies, on this news.

The dollar also dropped against the euro and other world currencies, as worldwide investors decided this trend meant the USA is a worse currency to own.

This makes every US export more expensive, across the board, not just coated papers.
So US businesses will stand to lose a huge amount MORE in export earnings, versus a very small amount of boost to a few paper manufacturers.

In other words, looks great on paper, but when you look at real world consequences, tariffs like this hurt our entire economy disproportionately. We all suffer when the dollar goes down against the euro or the yen- it makes our stuff more expensive to sell to them, and it doesnt make it any cheaper for us to buy here at home- so many US products involve some imported components that we just end up getting screwed both coming and going.

In Steve's ideal world, where we traded with no one, and were entirely self sufficient, then yes, US companies would pick up the slack when foreign imports went up in price- but the world is already far too interconnected for that- instead, tariffs hurt us, but not them.

HuFlungDung

Talking about making generalizations....By coddling home industry with tariffs, you have no idea of what inefficiency you are subsidizing.

Click to expand...

Talk about another person in need of a mirror.

HuFlungDung, since you are such an expert on efficient production of toys, go show us all how its done.

YOU SHOW US HOW YOU WILL COMPETE WITH A NATION WITH A PER CAPITA INCOME THAT IS LESS THAN OUR PER CAPITA DEFENSE SPENDING.

NOT ENDLESS RHETORIC

SHOW ME THE NUMBERS

SHOW ME HOW YOU CAN COMPETE WITH CHINESE WORKERS WHOSE ANNUAL INCOME WOULDN'T PAY MY PROPERTY TAXES


Steve

Ries

Now realistically, how much money will the Government earn in tariffs on coated paper? A few hundred grand a year, max.

Click to expand...

NOT.

This is the tip of the iceberg.

Once other U.S. industries see that the paper industry can win in court, next will be steel, textiles, autos, and so on.

Ries

And how much more coated paper will american suppliers sell, assuming that cutrate Chinese coated paper now costs 11% more ( I think that is the tariff percentage being discussed).

Click to expand...

A perfect example of what I'm up against.

It took me 30 seconds - count them Ries - 30 seconds to google this article:

U.S. Slaps Tariff On Chinese Paper

"The move by the U.S. Commerce Department ended a two decade rule that has given China more breathing space than other trading partners by imposing import duties of nearly 21% on paper products from the People's Republic.

You free traders are this ignorant about the subject and this lazy to find out the truth, imagine your ignorance and laziness to investigate the whole subject.

God, this is an uphill battle.

Ries

BUT- as soon as this was announced, the stock market dipped- potentially billions of dollars was lost by american stock owners and american companies, on this news.

Click to expand...

News flash Ries, Wall Street loves free trade - from destroying millions of American manufacturing jobs and historic trade deficits to $13.5 million fortune 500 CEO incomes.


Ries

The dollar also dropped against the euro and other world currencies, as worldwide investors decided this trend meant the USA is a worse currency to own.

This makes every US export more expensive, across the board, not just coated papers.
So US businesses will stand to lose a huge amount MORE in export earnings, versus a very small amount of boost to a few paper manufacturers.

Click to expand...

Don't you have it backwards Ries?

As the U.S. dollar falls IMPORTS ARE MORE EXPENSIVE. EXPORTS ARE CHEAPER.

That's why Japan, China, Germany and God knows what other countries have been hoarding dollars, to drive up the value of the dollar and make imports cheap.

Again, God help us.

Ries

In Steve's ideal world, where we traded with no one, and were entirely self sufficient, then yes, US companies would pick up the slack when foreign imports went up in price- but the world is already far too interconnected for that- instead, tariffs hurt us, but not them.

Click to expand...

I get so stinking sick of people putting words in my mouth that I never said.

Look Ries, how many times do I have to say this before it gets through your thick skull?

I try to be nice about this and this is the crap that I get back.

I have said until I'm blue in the face that AMERICA HAS AND ALWAYS WILL NEED TO TRADE WITH OTHER COUNTRIES. There are essential natural resources of which America has no economical supply or no supply at all. We have to trade to secure these.

Did it get through that time?

A week form now are you going to quote me as saying America shouldn't trade and am I going to again have to set you straight?

Beam me up Scotty.

If people are so brainwashed by free trade dogma as to be unable to reason, this nation is doomed to self-destruct.

Steve

I wish just once the government would actually take some action on tarrifs. Put in tarrifs high enough to do some good.

I do not necessarily favor tarrifs, but I would like to see the theory of tarrifs tested. Actually do something that is intented to produce a certain result. Try it, see if it really produces what the advocates say it will. See if the other consequences are as bad as the opponents say they will be. Actually get some real world data.

Thermo1

SeymourDumore

So, my question is this. Should we apply the tariff based on the $100 profit made here, or the difference between the foreign tax rate and ours?
How about the loss of revenue to both myself and the US gov, whenever a consumer is buying the foreign product, thereby eliminating my profit and the govt's tax entitlement?

Click to expand...

Thank you for asking an objective question. Such a refreshing change.

My opinion (not fact, just my opinion) is that tariffs should be applied based upon the trade imbalance. Historically, nations and their industries have hidden, lied, deceived, manipulated just about every conceivable facet of their finances to gain an advantage in the world market for their gain and could not care less about the damage they impose on unprotected markets. It is open warfare.

When a U.S. manufacturer files a grievance against a foreign company an investigation is started:

UNITED STATES INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION

" The ITC and the U.S. Department of Commerce are responsible for conducting antidumping (AD) and countervailing duty (CVD) (subsidy) investigations and five-year (sunset) reviews under Title VII of the Tariff Act of 1930. Under this law, U.S. industries may petition the ITC and Commerce for relief from unfairly priced (dumped) and subsidized imports. Dumping occurs when a foreign producer sells a product in the United States at a price that is below that producer's sales price in its home market, or at a price that is lower than its cost of production. Subsidizing occurs when a foreign government provides financial assistance to benefit the production, manufacture, or exportation of a good. If the Department of Commerce finds that an imported product is dumped or subsidized and the ITC finds that a U.S. industry producing a like product is materially injured or threatened with material injury, an antidumping duty order or countervailing duty order will be imposed to offset the dumping or subsidies.

When an antidumping or countervailing duty order is imposed, Commerce instructs the Bureau of Customs and Border Protection (Customs) to assess antidumping or countervailing duties on imports of the product into the United States to offset the unfair trade practice. Under the Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act of 2000 (CDSOA or Byrd Amendment), antidumping and countervailing duties collected are distributed annually to affected domestic producers for qualifying expenditures incurred. Following imposition of an AD or CVD order, the ITC provides Customs with a list of affected domestic producers (those producers who publicly expressed support for the petition during the investigation); those producers can then submit certifications to Customs of qualifying expenditures in order to receive a pro rata share of the annual distribution of duties collected.

Commerce and the ITC review each outstanding antidumping and countervailing duty order every five years to determine whether revocation of the order would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of dumping or subsidies and of material injury within a reasonably foreseeable time. If both agencies make affirmative determinations, the order is continued for another five years; if not, the order is revoked."

By the time this process plays out, it's too late:

Pat Buchanan

"In each of the last five years, steel imports have exceeded 30 million tons, as 31 U.S. steel companies have had to file for bankruptcy. In the last two years alone, 46,000 more steel jobs disappeared and another 19 percent of our capacity was lost.

To pundits who sniff that the U.S. steel industry is inefficient and should be allowed to die, Rep. Peter Visclosky, D-Ind., replies: “Since 1980, the industry has spent $60 billion to increase efficiency. Productivity has increased 156 percent, and man-hours per ton have declined from 10 to 3.5. Today, no one produces a ton of steel more efficiently than American steelworkers do.”

While U.S. steel mills are creations of free enterprise, most overseas mills would not even exist were it not for state subsidies. And in finding that illegally traded foreign steel created the crisis, the U.S. International Trade Commission was unanimous. As for threats from across the pond, the EU will be hammered if it starts a trade war – for at risk would be the entire $49 billion trade surplus in manufactures the European Union ran with the United States in 2001.

Will U.S. consumers suffer from these tariffs? Writes Visclosky: “Even under a 40 percent tariff, the average cost of a $25,000 car would have risen only about $25; the average cost of a refrigerator just $3.”

But if imports were allowed to kill our industry, scores of thousands of steelworkers would have to file for unemployment, as the United States became as dependent on foreign steel as we are on foreign oil."


I personally don't want to wait until 31 steel mills close and we loose 19% of our steel capacity.

I would apply the tariffs before the damage is done.

Historically (especially under President McKinley) we had tariff schedules that from the outset assumed that foreign industry would set out to destroy ours and we didn't wait for it to happen. I personally would propose tariff rates that would establish a trade balance - not a surplus - not a deficit - A BALANCE with each individual nation.

Its not an overnight process, it would take years to establish the rates necessary to reach that balance. But we did it in our past and we pretty effectively ran trade balances for the better part of our history. It hasn't been until the era of free trade and the 1970's that we started running trade deficits like we have them today.

I hope that gives you some information in you search.

Steve

I think some of pressure against "Chinese Tarrifs" comes from US companies who have invested in manufacturing in China. This was my point in making the remark about "coated paper".

The Chinese currently make three times as much steel as the US. The Japanese make slightly more steel than the US.

A twenty one percent tarrif on imported steel will not help US firms adapt to price pressures in overseas markets.

If anything such a tarrif will discourage basic investment in the US by offshore concerns because of increased costs of doing business. The net effect might (please Steve, read this carefully) be to discourage overseas investment in US manufacturing. This translates to lost jobs in the US.

There is also the problem of trade wars.

Fortunately the WTO will probably react as quickly to steel tarrifs as they did last time, when Bush passed them to "help" the US steel industry.

Gene

SHOW ME HOW YOU CAN COMPETE WITH CHINESE WORKERS WHOSE ANNUAL INCOME WOULDN'T PAY MY PROPERTY TAXES

Click to expand...

Many firms do every day, Steve. My employer has a division in China. We make the same product. So far the Chinese haven't been able to meet us in time to market and customer responsiveness.

Customers will pay a premium for premium goods. Customers will NOT pay a premium for commodities.

If you'd knock off this Marxist non-sense of thinking of all manufactured goods as commodities and start thinking of customer satisfaction you might find alternate answers to this dilemma you propose, in some cases a false dilemma.

Until then I hope you're still using your machinist skills. It'd be pretty ironic if you couldn't work fast enough to "keep up" with Chinese labor.

Oh, and Steve, if you think I'm gonna subsidize your tired old ass think again. I don't owe you anything. Nobody else does either.

Gene

Maybe not but the tarriff machine is in operation
now anyway it seems.

Still, *nobody* is addressing the idea put
forth:

China's economy is vastly different from the
US economy.

This is why the tarriffs are being called for
from both sides.

Jim

GeneH

Many firms do every day, Steve. My employer has a division in China. We make the same product. So far the Chinese haven't been able to meet us in time to market and customer responsiveness.

Click to expand...

And what were you saying to me about Straw Man? Get real GeneH, if the Chinese were really concerned about your little niche they'd snow you under in a year.

GeneH

Fortunately the WTO will probably react as quickly to steel tarrifs as they did last time, when Bush passed them to "help" the US steel industry.

Click to expand...

And I agree with you there.

GeneH

If anything such a tarrif will discourage basic investment in the US by offshore concerns because of increased costs of doing business. The net effect might (please Steve, read this carefully) be to discourage overseas investment in US manufacturing. This translates to lost jobs in the US.

Click to expand...

Or decreased foreign CONTROL of U.S. manufacturing. Remember GeneH, 98% of foreign investment is used to buy U.S. assets. Some of us see selling off the family silverware as not such a good long term idea.

GeneH

Many firms do every day, Steve. My employer has a division in China. We make the same product. So far the Chinese haven't been able to meet us in time to market and customer responsiveness

Click to expand...

Again, 100% USDA Straw Man. Our trade deficit with China shows what the reality is.

Come on GeneH, tell everybody how your little niche is going to lead the way to reverse our $232.5 BILLION dollar trade deficit with the Chinese.


GeneH

If you'd knock off this Marxist non-sense of thinking of all manufactured goods as commodities and start thinking of customer satisfaction you might find alternate answers to this dilemma you propose, in some cases a false dilemma.

Click to expand...

And if you'd get off your dogma campaign and open your eyes to reality, I wouldn't have to waste my time showing you the facts that you refuse to look up.

GeneH

Oh, and Steve, if you think I'm gonna subsidize your tired old ass think again. I don't owe you anything. Nobody else does either.

Click to expand...

You owe all of us an apology for your disinformation and doing nothing to stop flushing our country down the free trade toilet. Some day our kids will wonder where your brains were when people like yourself, staring at the reality of run-away trade deficits that exactly coincide with stupid trade agreements, sat on your other end and did the worst thing possible, spew out lies.

Here, discover facts instead of lies:

U.S. BALANCE OF TRADE WITH MEXICO

YEAR……….TRADE BALANCE (millions of dollars)
1985…………-5,497
1986…………-4,910
1987…………-5,688
1988…………-2,631
1989…………-2,180
1990…………-1,877
1991…………+2,147
1992…………+5,381
1993…………+1,663
NAFTA VOTED INTO LAW NOVEMBER 1993
1994…………+1,349
1995…………-15,808
1996…………-17,505
1997…………-14,549
1998…………-15,856
1999…………-22,811
2000…………-24,577
2001…………-30,041
2002…………-37,145
2003…………-40,648
2004…………-45,066
2005…………-49,743


U.S. BALANCE OF TRADE WITH CANADA

YEAR……….TRADE BALANCE (millions of dollars)
1985…………-22,755
1986…………-22,920
1987…………-11,270
1988…………-9,776
1989…………-9,144
1990…………-7,706
1991…………-5,914
1992…………-8,035
1993…………-10,772
NAFTA VOTED INTO LAW NOVEMBER 1993
1994…………-13,967
1995…………-17,143
1996…………-21,682
1997…………-15,467
1998…………-16,652
1999…………-32,111
2000…………-51,897
2001…………-52,843
2002…………-48,165
2003…………-51,671
2004…………-66,480
2005…………-78,485


Get a clue GeneH and start taking your own advice and worry about your own other end. Perhaps start by doing more research and less posting of blather.

Come on Geneh, go ahead. Explain to everyone how in two years we went from a trade surplus with Mexico to a $15 billion trade deficit all because of your favorite excuses. you know what favorite excuses, don't you geneH?

Tort costs.
EPA regulations.
Lazy U.S. industry.
Blah, blah, blah......

All within two years the U.S. sued itself, regulated itself and lazied itself out of a competitive advantage with Mexico.

You keep on worrying about my buttocks while I worry about if you aren't using your gray matter for a seat cushion.

Steve

All within two years the U.S. sued itself, regulated itself and lazied itself out of a competitive advantage with Mexico.

Click to expand...

NAFTA did indeed make it easier to outsource to Mexico. China made it even easier than Mexico.

Of course regulation has made it hard on US business. Perhaps you'd still be working in manufacturing if the tort and regulations weren't so hard.

Still, there were other factors, Steve....

The Tobacco Settlements were "concluded" by 1998, Steve. A lot of businesses began to outsource in order to reduce risk exposure.

US oil imports from Canada and Mexico also started to grow during these times. As of this year the three leading oil exporters to the US were Canada, Saudi Arabia and Mexico, in that order.

I think between the two I can account for some of those changes as well.


Let's just get back to square one, Steve. You aren't going to listen to reason. You quote Marx, you fight for Activist driven pollution non-sense. You support Tort. You figure, wrongly, that business owners are evil and greedy.

You are the sort of person who thinks that you have your cake and eat it too.

Someone this evening just woke up in China. He is going to the factory. He is doing the work that you used to do. He understands capitalism.

You do not understand capitalism. This is why you are shuffling his work around at Target.

Tomorrow, Steve, I go off to make goods bound for foreign nations. Unlike you I compete in a global market place. I compete with Chinese labor and beat its tail off.

You shuffle primitive crap around at Target. Enjoy.

Gene

GeneH

Of course regulation has made it hard on US business. Perhaps you'd still be working in manufacturing if the tort and regulations weren't so hard.

Click to expand...

Let me explain a reality which you are never going to get, because "You aren't going to listen to reason," so this is really for the benefit of members with an open mind - obviously leaves you out in "know-it-all-but-never-lived-it" land.

Unlike your all-knowing, pathetic, self-righteous self, I've spent most of my time in industry. Unlike you, I've worked in everything from an iron foundry, plastic mold company, to job shops and electronics factory.

If it weren't for those regulations that you so despise, I could be dead right now if I had stayed on in your self-induced delusion of less regulated industry being a better one.

Do I exaggerate?

Well all-knowing GeneH, you never put your pathetic buttocks in an iron foundry. Your cushy life-style lungs have never sucked in what mine have. You wouldn't know a core box liner if some one hit you over the head with it - not that it would knock any sense into it.

Unlike your inexperienced buttocks, I made them. When your cushy lungs were sucking in clean air, mine were sucking in asbestos dust because every one of those liners were made from asbestos.

Got that know-it-all?

Need I spell it for you?

A-S-B-E-S-T-O-S + L-U-N-G-S

Go ahead Einstein, tell me all about sucking in asbestos and why we need less regulations

Federal regulations applying to asbestos were unknown in our foundry. Never posted. The material had always been used and nobody knew different.

Then my co-workers did the worst possible thing you can do with asbestos - you know what that is, not that your pathetic, sheltered little self could care less?

They baked the cores with them. Not that you would know your buttocks from a hole in the ground about hot core boxes and core making.

Got that, brainiac?

They cooked those asbestos liners 8-10 hours a day, 5-6 days a week, 52 weeks a year, year after year with machines you never heard of nor ever will see. They ran natural gas lines to these machines to produce the flames to heat the cores which were molded in the core boxes, insulated by the asbestos liners.

While your ignorant pompous self was formulating your grand theories about "environmental regulations" in your clean-air environment, we were living the reality your soft cushy lungs never experienced.

I heard that at least one of my co-workers died years later from complications associated with asbestos exposure.

Need that spelled out?

D-I-E-D

Are you dead yet, GeneH? Maybe your brain is.

Or you never learned how to use it.

I will never know how many of those people I worked with suffered from the effects of that exposure. Especially when people like you don't want it known.

Look at what others have discovered about foundries, but I bet you already knew all of this:

Iron Foundry Asbestos


"One characteristic of almost all of the industries in
Sarnia is their extensive use of asbestos. Asbestos lined
the foundry ovens, asbestos products were produced
and exported, and asbestos insulation covered the
miles of pipes that interweave the chemical valley. The
Sarnia–Lambton area has been cited as having the
highest rates of pleural mesothelioma in Ontario.6,7
Between 1986 and 1993 there was a fourfold excess
incidence of mesothelioma in Lambton County compared
with the rest of Ontario; 74% of the cases were
among former workers from either the Sarnia petrochemical
industry or the Holmes Foundry complex."


Oh, I almost forgot.

Duh, never having worked in an iron foundry, you wouldn't know foundry sand if you picked it out of your nose.

Guess what foundry sand is, know-it-all.

Foundry Sand

"Aside from the disposal costs associated with casting sands the biggest concern surrounding its use in the foundry industry is employee exposure to crystalline silica. Common foundry sands are composed of crystalline silica (quartz) materials. As such, prolonged exposure to dusts form these sands can be the cause of silicosis. This is particularly true when very fine grades of sand are handled. The Occupational Safety and Health Agency (OSHA) has proposed lowering the allowable workplace exposure of crystalline silica by 50% to 0.05 mg/m3. This level of exposure might be difficult to achieve at many foundries. In addition, the record keeping, reporting, training and medical surveillance required under the new standards would be extremely time consuming and costly."

Do you need me to spell that one for you?

S-I-L-I-C-O-S-I-S

Unlike you, I know what it is to pick foundry sand out of my nose, ears, hair, underwear, and every other body surface. When your cushy lungs were sucking in nice clean air, mine were also sucking in silica foundry sand.

Ever watch somebody die from silicosis?

Kinda-cool.

I heard of at least one employee take an "early retirement".

You ever take an "early retirement", soft, cushy boy?

Thanks to people like you, we will never know how many people died from this incurable disease that could have been avoided. Not that you care, we need less regulations and more deaths, especially when your soft buttocks aren't the ones getting exposed.

Silicosis Deaths

"During 1968--2002, of approximately 74 million death certificates, silicosis was recorded as the underlying or contributing cause of death on 16,305; a total of 15,944 (98%) deaths occurred in males. From 1968 to 2002, the number of silicosis deaths decreased from 1,157 (8.91 per million persons aged >15 years) to 148 (0.66) (Figure 1), corresponding to a 93% decline in the overall mortality rate."


Oh, but it doesn't end there.


Remember that core baking? Being the know-it-all you surely remember the smell.

You are the authority on all industry and all possible side effects of all chemical emissions.

You are also a know-it-all chemist.

You remember that smell, don't you?

It was the binder used to make the cores, that you know all about.

Core Binder

Those were Isocyanates and Formaldehyde fumes you remember smelling, right GeneH?

Why I remember you standing right next to me as I baked those cores with no ventilation in that building built in 1912.

Come on know-it-all. Explain to everybody the side effects of long-term daily exposure to Isocyanates and Formaldehyde fumes.

GeneH, you don't know your buttocks from a hole in the ground because you ain't been there.

You ain't lived what I've lived.

There is a reason for why I feel about a need for regulations, even if your pathetic, self righteous self will never get it.

And that's only the foundry. Oh, Einstein, I haven't touched other industries yet.

Do us all a favor.

Walk in real working peoples shoes before you take your brainless pot-shots at us. We were the ones doing the work you wouldn't touch with a ten-foot pole. Go watch a person die from his exposure for "global competition".

Get a brain.

Get a life.


Steve

GeneH

You shuffle primitive crap around at Target. Enjoy.

Click to expand...

Einstien at it again. Let me know when you can make "primitive" DVD players.

Get a brain.

Get a life.

Steve