The opposition to Nippon merging with US Steel is pandering to political pressure. Opposition may not be serving America’s best interests.
Great example of bi-partisan dumbassery.
3 Likes
Xeonphobia has been a thing in Shiny-land a long time. We old phartz remember the outrage when Japanese interests were buying up US properties years ago, including Firestone, another old line USian company, that ran itself into the ground with arrogant management and shoddy products.
Steve
3 Likes
No time today for the report which has overlays of politics and industry wish lists. Meaning the people who want the sale may have a case but that does not mean the topic does not have more to it.
My own take from when this sale was announced, the US needs to rise as a steel producer. So does Japan and so does India. I think all three will and the purchase of US Steel is not necessary to anything.
The US is reindustrializing.
I think SK will continue to play its role.
2 Likes
Among all the countries and cultures in the world Xenophobia is least in The West. Talk about catapulting malicious memes. What percent of Japan is immigrants? You wanna talk about Xenophobia talk always about Non-Western societies and occasionally mention The West when it comes to universal and in this case, minor human foibles.
4 Likes
That is a fair comment and still many of us do not put up with intolerance towards anyone.
1 Like
“We’re the least bad” is not exactly a rallying cry.
2 Likes
Especially considering the USian population is nearly all immigrant, within the span of a few hundred years, while the native American population, after wars of genocide, now accounts for only 1.3% of the population.
Steve
2 Likes
It is not really the issue. The problem was with the article. The idea the political pressure was nationalistic is unfair. It is nationalistic in some quarters but that is not central to the decision.
We are going to have a growing economic need for steel.
2 Likes
True, but the merger may improve our chances of meeting that need.
I don’t think the opposition is nationalistic. IMO, shutting down this merger will hurt American interests. Maybe politicians think they’re acting in America’s interest by opposing this deal, maybe they have another agenda.
I think the bi-partisan opposition is rooted in something much simpler, pandering to voters to win the upcoming election.
There is something to be said for “the national interest.” The country - and particularly the defense industry cannot exist without it. It is as crucial to the public welfare as energy or some reasonable measure of technological prowess.
It is not lost on history that the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor because FDR put a stop to their import of oil (at a time when we controlled much of the world supply), which he did because of the Japanese marauding in China and elsewhere in Asia.
We could debate TikTok all day and I wouldn’t care much (except as debate fodder), but there are some things which should remain in the hands of those wedded to the country, or at least potentially influenced by our government, and steel is one of them.
(I do not know enough about the industry, market shares, etc. to know if USSteel is that crucial a component. I worked in Pittsburgh in the 70’s, and at that time it was a leviathan, important to the national economy as well as the steel industry itself. After 40 years of foreign competition, capitulation, consolidation, etc. the calculation might be different, dunno. My central thesis remains: there are some things which ought to be within the control of the country and not within that of a foreign power which might or might not be hostile another 10 or 20 years hence.)
7 Likes
There is a big difference between national interests and bigotry.
Japanese capital serves Japan’s interests.
I would not worry about American steel production from here on out.
1 Like
Doy, no disrespect intended.
Yes, and sometimes our interests align.
1 Like
When I was in grad school in 81, we had a guest speaker, some VP from US Steel. After he left, one of the profs, one with industry experience, was laffing at the VP, and the company, particularly for their dependence on obsolete, unproductive, technology.
These days, the thing seems to be to cry for protection and subsidies from the government, or the “JCs” sell out so they can exercise their lush “change of control” bonus, because competing is hard.
Steve
4 Likes
Would the world have been a better place had the USA allowed Japan to take over Asia and allowed Germany to take over Europe? Not likely!
No, it would not be a better place. I don’t think anyone is suggesting that it would.
1 Like
Right. So the general idea is that the USA didn’t have much of a choice but to stop Japan (and Germany to some extent, though Russia did a lot of that job) for the good of the world. And in that case, the casus belli was not the stopping the flow of oil, it was the attempting to take over Asia.
2 Likes
Casus belli, nice!
Can’t it be both? A lot of historians much smarter than I suggest that Japan’s attack aimed to limit US intervention in their Pacific conquest, before their oil reserves dried up.
1 Like
Japan had about two years of reserves when they launched the Pearl Harbor attack. They knew they had to make a quick, decisive strike because as a resource poor nation they could not succeed in a drawn out conflict.
The Dutch East Indies had significant supplies, but to get there and maintain supply lines Japan had to 1) get the US out of the Pacific and 2) open a controlled corridor for supply, which is why within days of Pearl Harbor they began overrunning the Philippines, Vietnam, and other nearby far eastern countries.
This is a pretty good summation:
5 Likes