On Wed, Mar 13, 2002 at 10:08:29PM -0800, malamute wrote: > efficiency > n 1: the ratio of the output to the input of any system
The input should include the cost of labor. If you get to arbitrarily decide which costs to include and which not to include, then you can prove whatever you want. The only objective way is to include ALL costs, since everything is fungible. > Ton for ton of widgets, Company A will always make less money than > Company B even though A is more efficient at producing widgets. Actually, since company B gets more output per dollar of labor (everything else being equal), then company B is more efficient. > Rep. Peter Visclosky is a Chair on the Congressional Steel Caucus and he > represents the first district of Indiana. The city of Gary is located there; > where they have lots of experience of losing steel industry jobs. I do > think he is credible. You don't think he might be just a bit biased on one side of the issue? >To back up those claims: > > http://www.steel.org/policy/trade/aug98rep/compete3.htm > http://www.steel.org/policy/trade/aug98rep/compete2.htm > http://www.steel.org/policy/trade/aug98rep/compete1.htm I can't access these links -- the site is timing out and since they appear to be images, Google doesn't cache them. I'll try again later. > World wide production numbers can be had at www.worldsteel.org > > The best I could do for foreign steel efficiency was a snippet from > a recent McKinsey article regarding Chinese mills: (Free if you > register) European or Australian production would be a more informative comparison. > > > I've seen a lotof articles that claim that the micro-mills can produce steel > > more efficiently than the large, integrated mills. According to what I've > > read, the US has many of the large mills and comparitively few of the > > newer micro-mills. > > Currently micro (or mini) mills currently produce 45 to 50 percent of the > total output for the US. They are very productive (as productive as any > micro mill in the world), and they are very new in comparison to integrated > mills. They have not been around long enough to be effected by legacy > costs. If you would like to learn more about the darling of the US > mini-mills you can visit http://www.nucor.com Okay, so how do the remaining 50 to 55 percent of US steel mills compare to European and Australian mills? Unless you claim that the price of their steel has been artificially lowered through some means (eg., dumping or government subsidies), the answer is that the US is less efficient at producing steel per dollar of input. If this weren't the case, the prices wouldn't be getting undercut and no one would be whining for tariffs. > The problem with mini-mills is that they rely on scrap iron and steel. > They can't make it from virgin materials. If you need specialty steel > it is going to have to come from an integrated mill. Your car is > a byproduct of an integrated mill, mini mills can't produce strong > enough alloys for the automotive markets. Not to mention my favorite > tool steels. If that is the case, why are the tariffs needed? Surely consumers can judge what quality of steel they need and who supplies that quality for the lowest price? > I don't like tariffs. I do however understand the reasoning behind > this decision. It is temporary, and everybody will get over it. The > tariffs will bump up the price of a refrigerator about 3 to 5 bucks. > Whoo-whee. It will raise my material costs .02 to .03 cents per > piece. Again whoo-whee. I sure hope you are right. But if everyone else behaves as stupidly as the US, then they will impose tariffs of their own on their favored industries, and everything will go up. > Steel makes a country strong, And trade restrictions make a country soft and weak. -- "Erik Reuter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://www.erikreuter.com/
