To think its a no brainer to renationalise British Steel

[feellikeahugefailure]

We need steel, it's just being killed by cheap dumping. Would be foolish to let it go under and not produce any steel in the country.

Also the mistakes with remploy show that it will probably cost more in benefits if the business close. Not to mention more long term affects on mental health from people that can't ever get back into work.

Would decimate the local area, not just the workers but the knock on affect of the workers not spending their money in the local area. One pound earnt could be spent 10 times.

Where has anyone given any kind of indication that we would be happy with Chinese wages, conditions and environmental standards?

Its not a race to the bottom its a simple case of economy of scale, Im sure your going to tell me anonymously that your one of these rare people who are happy to pay over the odds for products and never hunt out bargains, the fact is its cheaper to produce this type of steel elsewhere, its the same reason why most of our food is imported and our electricals are produced elsewhere, your the one promoting a race to the bottom by saying we should support a failing business.

We could/should revamp the plant to near full automation and produce high quality steel but again we wont consume all the steel ourselves and protectionism isn't the greatest tactic to use so we are at the whims of the global market.

I don't think anyone is waiting to say "I told you so", more that its not a simple case of just keep producing steel, we are all intrinsically linked and, yes sometimes you have to accept that others do something at a better quality or cheaper and use there service and hope we can offer something in return.

There are arguments for imposing import tariffs on products that are produced with lower environmental standards.

For example, the EU could impose a 'carbon tax' on all gooods imported from overseas to take account of the carbon emitted in producing and transporting them. This would offset the carbon tax paid by home grown producers of steel.

Problem with that is the EU exports a lot of goods too and countries outside the EU may retaliate by imposing similar tariffs. This is what we call a trade war.

Overall, the issue here is who benefits form globalisation. Workers in the bottom 75% of the wage bracket in existng industries in developed countries that once were protected will be forced to take lower wages or lose their jobs and those in higher management grades gain as the company they work for increases profits.

This is what the entire US Presidential election is about. US blue collar workers losing jobs to immigrants and to overseas workers. The real income of US blue collar workers has not risen for 30 years and indeed has fallen and entire swathes of jobs have disappeared and eventually including entire cities may disappear (eg Detroit).

Who benefits from gloablisation and internatioal trade is developed economies is clearly the providers of capital while workers lose out. Workers in developed countries will end up being unemployed or forced to work for the same wages as people from developing countries.

Workers in developed countries will end up being unemployed or forced to work for the same wages as people from developing countries

Or the alternate is move into other industry, wages will not reduce to the comparison of developing countries without some massive black swan event , there is also a reason for the Citizens income although that has possible side affects as well.

Using America as an example is sort of ironic considering they are the king of protectionism, Detroit and GMC have relied too long on Protectionism and government hand outs, the cars they where producing wasn't wanted in the market place, you cant force people to buy your product. Management and the unions didn't really allow for innovation and efficiency and was behind the curve of other car manufactures, keeping jobs just for jobs sake is not productive long term otherwise we would still have cotton mills and lime kilns.

What some people seem to be suggesting is that we must keep the developing countries in their place, how is a country supposed to develop if it cannot sell its sometimes superior product on the open market.

"the market should decide its fate and not the government."

Repeated on here over and over like any of you actually understand Hayek, keep repeating stuff you don't understand all you like, doesn't make you right.

There is no such thing as a free market for one and the steel market is a great example of this. The reason the Chinese steel is so cheap and being "dumped" is that the Chinese producers get subsidies from their government to produce so can actually sell it below the cost of production, so there is no "free market" to decide because the market is being manipulated by the Chinese.

Secondly most of the rest of Europe does things to keep their steel industries going, the Italians have and the Germans. In fact it is Germany's example with industry that I think we should follow the lead on, subsidise investment and energy costs. But then then German's actually invest long term and the fast buck culture that pervades the UK investment scene is not as large.

We have bailed out the banks and the car industry for good reason, we cannot rely on importing steel in the future, we must bail out the steel industry. Nationalise it, invest in it and

Free market economics indeed, yeah those who argue that are the ones who will benefit from the current status quo, it essentially says: " This works in my favour at the minute." It works in the Tories favour cause no one in Wales votes Tory, and the assett stripping of the company will be left to their financier friends. Also it suits them down to the ground because it benefits the Chinese, the only reason Cameron vetoed the tariff on Chinese steel is because Tory economic policy is so tightly bound up with them ( and all those directorships when he steps down). Vested interests important to scrutinise when looking at decision making.

So stop your pseudo economic Tory drivel right now.

"Using America as an example is sort of ironic considering they are the king of protectionism, Detroit and GMC have relied too long on Protectionism and government hand outs, the cars they where producing wasn't wanted in the market place, you cant force people to buy your product. "

Protectionism wasn't really Detroits problem, it was the brave new world of economics that was ushered in during the 1980s that was. GMC made record profits in the 1980s but failed to invest in new technology beacuse the new economics said shareholders were the most important people, there was more spent on share buy back schemes to increase the value of the share in a period of about 20 years than there was in investment. The problem with shareholders being the most important stakeholder is that shareholders are often short term ( 3 months on average) and it allows management to take decisions which are short term financially profitable for the share holder and because of that managment recieve higher rewards.

"Management and the unions didn't really allow for innovation and efficiency and was behind the curve of other car manufactures, keeping jobs just for jobs sake is not productive long term otherwise we would still have cotton mills and lime kilns. "

Managment and the unions in the US cried out for investment, it didn't happen. Strangley the very succesful Germans seem to have union members on the boards of their largest companies as workers are valued as an important stakeholder because by nature they are interested in the long term sucess of the company. They are not seen as someone to be taken advantage of others in serarch of short term profits.

People on here talk as if trade unions are a bad thing, but you just seem to believe the tory propaganda about it. Of course the Tories don't like trade unions, because they allow the workers to get more out of companies, which of course lowers private profits

Not sure when we successfully bailed out the automotive industry. Rover had some government support to help win an election, but that didn't end well.

Not sure when we successfully bailed out the automotive industry

We never did. Unless "success" has been redefined ?

What do you think the scrappage scheme was? As well as billions in cheap loans, guarentees and also subsidies that were put in. Philanthropic zeal was it?

Chinese producers get subsidies from their government to produce so can actually sell it below the cost of production,

The Chinese government are loosing a shit load of cash every day from this over production, they are going through an economic dip from there investment binge post 2008, if they cut production they face even more turmoil than what is currently happening, so yeah I have a basic grasp of whats happening.

There is a 'free market' happening because when China slows down India and Brazil will take over, Italy and Germany are not producing the low quality dump that we and china are, and crucially have a lot more automation, new plants something you are keen to ignore and just blame on part nationalisation.

we cannot rely on importing steel in the future
Drivel, there are as you admit plenty of places that produce high quality steel within the EU that is already cheaper to buy than it is to produce within the UK, if we get to the point that we cannot rely on importing goods, steel will be the least of our worries.

So stop your pseudo economic Tory drivel right now.

Sorry to disappoint but I'm no fan of the Tories, Its quite ironic that you use the car industry bail out as that was mainly for increased liquidity in the market disguised as keeping jobs going, I haven't seen any reasonable justification as to why we should nationalise the steel industry and shouting DAE free markets arent realz!!! as though your the only enlightened one doesn't justify it either.

The scrappage scheme was a bailout, and yes it was designed to keep jobs going but why the automotive industry more important than steel? Why shouldn't we have an interevention for steel too?

We need to produce steel here because in future the cheaper imports may not be relied on, if we at least have our own industry we are less at risk to the impacts of price fluctuations etc. We also need to consider our BOP of which the current account is in the largest deficit ever.

If we nationalise and invest in British steel we can become competitive, no firm is going to do this because they tend to be in it for short term, low risk gains. Which is excatly why the government should be nationalising and investing.

There is no such thing as a free market, especially in steel because the governments of each of those countries either own a stake in their steel production or take massive interventions into the markets in order to influence them through subsidies. By very definition a free market is free from intervention by government. We should be following their lead and investing, yes we would lose some jobs through automation, but many would be saved, and we would have an asset for the future.

If we nationalise and invest in British steel we can become competitive

Like all the stunningly successful nationalisations in the 50s and 60s ?

Forms of nationalisation seem to work for our European counterparts though don't they. The 50s and 60s nationalisations all suffered here from chronic under investment. The Rail industry recieves more in subsidies now (in real terms) than British Rail ever got.

Forms of nationalisation seem to work for our European counterparts though don't they. The 50s and 60s nationalisations all suffered here from chronic under investment. The Rail industry recieves more in subsidies now (in real terms) than British Rail ever got.

So given the UK fucked it up in the 50s and 60s, what's to say there's any more chance of getting it right this time ?

The Rail industry recieves more in subsidies now (in real terms) than British Rail ever got.

Somebody has to ensure the shareholders do OK ...

British steel we can become competitive, no firm is going to do this because they tend to be in it for short term, low risk gains. Which is excatly why the government should be nationalising and investing.

Actually there is already a huge amount of investment in and promotion of British Steel including by the government just not this type of steel.

Britain's expertise and profit lies in producing highly technical specialist steel products that other countries can't make because they don't have the skills to do it. People pay a huge premium for these products - think ultra hi-tech airplane parts.

No matter how much the government invests we can't force anybody to buy cheap low grade steel for buildings that aren't being built or railways that aren't planned. We would just be throwing money at creating something worthless.

if we at least have our own industry we are less at risk to the impacts of price fluctuations etc

Yeah look how well that has worked out for us so far with Oil and Steel, we are already competitive in different areas, other countries are entering the market re steel production and you will be actively entering a race to the bottom by supporting a business model where there wasn't a huge demand for it in the first place.

I understand the 'free market' and although i differing opinions to you, that doesn't mean I have fallen for tory propoganda , if you got that 6th form chip of your shoulder maybe you could enlighten me as to why its a practical solution.

Because so far your answer seems to be 'just coz....'

The Chinese cheap steel won't last forever, neither will the stuff coming from Brazil or India, that's why.

I agree the steel industry needs some reform but to rely on imports only seems very short sighted. Wioth a nationalisation and increase in investment now we can and will be far more competitive in the future, but to let it die means that there is no future for steel which we will come to regret.

Oil is another example, we seem to be deconstructing our oil industry because of short term market fluctuations, the Suadi's won't be producing at this cheap price forever and when prices go up again and North Sea oil is once again viable we won't have the infrastructure to be able to exploit it.

Its not just "cause" and no 6th form chip on my shoulder, we already complain in this country that we rely far too much on imports and that the work we have in regions outside of London is low paid etc. This is an opportunity to invest in the future, as many of our European counterparts have done.

We should also be putting massive tarrifs on the Chinse imports as the US have done. Not only do they subsidise their steel but the Yuan is massively undervalued to give almost absolute advantage to Chinese firms.

When Brazil and India fall foul there will be another 'market' ready for the uptake, if the price dictates its worth producing cheap steel someone will be along to produce it, as with Oil, when the barrel price dictates that its worth going back to the North Sea it will be done.

I agree we should invest heavily in northern regions (i live in one), however investing in the future is also not having one area so dependent on one industry, and IMO we should not be chucking money at a business model that we cannot globally compete on (cheap steel), also investing in the future means giving some tax breaks for small sme and big business which doesn't seem to go down well within some quarters.

Ok then don't nationalise, but then you'd have to spend at least as much again as nationalisation would cost investing in new industry in these areas. But we know that's not going to happen.

Nationalisation was good for RBS, Northern Rock, Bradford and Bingley, billions have been lost there, why not for the steel industry?

Should we also not consider the negative externalities of importing steel? Is the social cost higher than the cost of producing here?

I'm all for free markets, if we actually have them, but lets be honest, they don't exist and the reasons for not interevening in this one is not your reasoning ( although valid) on the competition, but the fact that we are protecting Chinese vested interests.

If nothing else. this debate demonstrates the inextricable linking of everything.

Now that may sound bleedin' obvious, but it's something I think all "capitalist" economies deliberately overlook or forget from time to time.

Industries, communities, services and people do not exists as isolated islands (I believe there's a poem about that ).

The classic illustration of silo-thinking is the concept of "saving money" by switching off street lighting, whilst not balancing it against the increased expenditure on dealing with accidents (plus the lost taxes from people injured and killed and unable to work).

The symbol of Ouruburous (look it up) is very apt for industrial economies.

I'm all for free markets, if we actually have them, but lets be honest, they don't exist

And never will. So given that, is there such a gulf between Tory free markets and Labour free markets ?

I will repeat what I said earlier re banks:

they didn't want to (nationalise)- the Labour government only nationalised Northern Rock when it looked like a serious run was about to take place. They prevented Barclay's from merging with Lehman Brothers because of fears that it would need state provision, and pushed Lloyds to take on HBOS and only stepped in when it looked like the whole credit system was going into systemic shock and you wouldn't be able to get cash out of an ATM.

I'm not saying it was right but the scenario is completely different.

I don't agree with anyone using the "free market" argument so there is no difference.

I don't think the Labour government did a great job regulating the bankers, they were too close to Clinton (who repealed Glass-Steagal) and probably a little too close to financiers.

Corbyn's idea of a People's QE interests me though, could be massively beneficial.