"george conklin"
nospam.com> wrote:
>
> "James Robinson"
212.com> wrote in message
> news:Xns9987C2AD2D335wascana212com@216.196.97.142...>> rotten
gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> On Aug 9, 12:06 pm, "george conklin"
nospam.com> wrote:>>>>> On Aug 9, 7:11 am, "Joe the Aroma"
gmail.com> wrote:>>>>
>>>>>>> On Aug 8, 4:25 pm, rotten
gmail.com> wrote:>>>>>>>> On Aug 8, 10:07 am, Bolwerk
gmail.com> wrote:>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Joe the Aroma wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> "Peter T. Daniels"
verizon.net> wrote in
>>>>>>>>>> message
>>>>>>>>>>news:1186524662.294588.232100@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com.
>>>>>>>>>>.. >>>>>>>>>>> So who are you disagreeing with, "rotten," who says the
>>>>>>>>>>> country is
>>>>>>>>>>> worse since the 1960s, or most Americans, who say the
>>>>>>>>>>> country is worse
>>>>>>>>>>> since reaganomics?
>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Eh? Where'd you see this survey. I mean, they voted for
>>>>>>>>>> the guy twice. Then
>>>>>>>>>> they voted for his VP. He mustn't have been that bad.
>>>>
>>>>>>>>> He mustn't been that bad? They voted for the current guy
>>>>>>>>> twice. Oh,
>>>>>>>>> wait. Once.
>>>>
>>>>>>>> Huh? Reagan was elected in 1980 and then re-elected in 1984
>>>>>>>> with a landslide. Bush the elder also won in a landslide
>>>>>>>> in1988. The vote in 1993 was a split vote with a lot of
>>>>>>>> Republicans going for Perot.
>>>>
>>>>>>> Reagan isn't "the current guy."
>>>>
>>>>>>> Bowerk's subtle jab at the electorate was to point out that
>>>>>>> getting elected (well, getting to be president) doesn't bear
>>>>>>> all that much relationship to whether one is "that bad."
>>>>
>>>>>> I would think it would, actually. At least getting to be
>>>>>> reelected. If you
>>>>>> attach your name (or it popularly happens) to a school of
>>>>>> economics, then a
>>>>>> re-election campaign will end up being a referendum on that
>>>>>> economic system.
>>>>
>>>>>>> Weren't there bumper stickers, "Don't blame me, I voted for
>>>>>>> Mondale"?
>>>>
>>>>>> Yeah, and I'm sure exists people who thought (and still think)
>>>>>> LaRouche would've been a good president. ;)
>>>>
>>>>>> To play devil's advocate, I think Carter was unfairly blamed for
>>>>>> some things, such as a foolish belief in Keynesian economics
>>>>>> that created stagflation in the 1970's. He didn't create the
>>>>>> policies that led to the problems in the late 1970's but he took
>>>>>> the brunt for them. Actually, his Fed chair guy Volcker took
>>>>>> some steps that led to the favorable conditions
>>>>>> in the 1980's.
>>>>
>>>>>> I'm not saying Reaganomics were perfect or even the best
>>>>>> possible system, but if they made people miserable, I would
>>>>>> think that voters would have rejected that to which it's name
>>>>>> was derived from.
>>>>
>>>>> It was "borrow and spend" economics. Go look at the huge
>>>>> increases in the national debt during Reagan/
>>>>> Bush.
>>>>
>>>> And look at today's balance of payments problems now that nothing
>>>> much is made in the USA anymore.
>>>
>>> This is a misnomer. The US is still the top manufacturer in the
>>> world. The problem is that the US has been making more with less
>>> workers, which is why manufacturing employment continues to plummet.
>>
>> Heavy US industry has leveled off somewhat, while there has been
>> growth in the rest of the world.
>>
>> Using steel production as an example, the US produced about 1/2 of
>> the world's steel in 1945, but produces less than 10 percent today.
>> While US steel production has been relatively constant over the last
>> 30 years or so, it now produces only about 10%% of the world's steel.
>> The US is now the second largest steel producer in the world behind
>> China.
>
> That is recycled steel, right? We just reprocess scrap.
It's the mini mills that used scrap steel that pushed the traditional
mills into bankruptcy. However, iron ore is still being mined in places
like the Iron Range in Minnesota, the Upper Peninsula in Michigan, and on
the lower north shore of the St. Lawrence river in Quebec. This also
feeds the steel industry.
