Thank you EPA.

madmallard wrote:

Ignorant wrote: But I don't think you are correct.. If you read the comments that people posted on that original article, there is discussion about the poor condition of the plant. Don't try the whole China has no regulations argument. I truly believe this argument isn't about regulations. I believe the company is using them as a scapegoat.

I can't address your viewpoint until I have more information. Do similar plants operate under different regulations, i.e. outside the EPA and therefore in another country? Do they have compulsory operating standards that parallel EPA mandates? I can't reasonably discuss the scapegoating angle until I've elminated this as a notion on the issue. :-/ but thats just me.

In my experience, limited as it may be, it is always easier to blame "the other" than for any entity to admit their own wrongdoing or not even wrongdoing but complacency that brought down their companies... (Caveat: some eminent domain cases I have seen do have the effect of taking down companies... Mostly motivated by greed of some town official)..

Blaming cheap labor or low cost foreign products that are making their own products not competitive is like a mechanic blaming his/her tools. Can regulations make it harder to compete? Sure. Should you as a business man turn your compliance to those rules to your competitive advantage? YES! Those that don't close up shop due to laziness.

Ignorant wrote:

oldsaw wrote:

Ignorant wrote:

triumph5 wrote: The only winner will be Agri-business. Watch the cost of food go up, too.

Ding Ding Ding.. Corn lobby at work. Thank your red state congressmen for paying for overproduction

Nice try to deflect all blame to those only partially responsible: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=11270909 The guilty are everywhere when you point a finger at corporations, government and K Street.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earl_Butz start there.

One "side" started the fraud; the other "side" perpetuates it.

Thanks for clarifying the true villains..........

Ignorant wrote: In my experience, limited as it may be, it is always easier to blame "the other" than for any entity to admit their own wrongdoing or not even wrongdoing but complacency that brought down their companies... (Caveat: some eminent domain cases I have seen do have the effect of taking down companies... Mostly motivated by greed of some town official).. Blaming cheap labor or low cost foreign products that are making their own products not competitive is like a mechanic blaming his/her tools. Can regulations make it harder to compete? Sure. Should you as a business man turn your compliance to those rules to your competitive advantage? YES! Those that don't close up shop due to laziness.

Thats only if you believe that such regulations can represent a good thing no matter what. There's lots of Wal Mart revenue on cheap chinese manufactured crap that is proving you wrong everyday that the majority consumer is not willing to pay the premium cost difference for various goods that are still made in USA by comparison.

btw, not disputing the scapegoat explanation, I'm just saying that for me to be more convinced by that explanation, I have to eliminate other possibilities. We -can- factually eliminate things like unequal regulations if they don't exist.

We -can't- factually confirm or deny the scapegoat explanation without some serious inside info. ;p

oldsaw wrote:

Ignorant wrote:

oldsaw wrote:

Ignorant wrote:

triumph5 wrote: The only winner will be Agri-business. Watch the cost of food go up, too.

Ding Ding Ding.. Corn lobby at work. Thank your red state congressmen for paying for overproduction

Nice try to deflect all blame to those only partially responsible: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=11270909 The guilty are everywhere when you point a finger at corporations, government and K Street.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earl_Butz start there.

One "side" started the fraud; the other "side" perpetuates it. Thanks for clarifying the true villains..........

The ethanol stuff is only the latest go around.. I really despise corn subsidies, period. Earl Butz started it and it has been perpetuated by the congresspeople of the midwest states for years. Infact, the whole thing started the factory farming idiocy that is now playing into the whole obesity crisis we have going on in this country. The Factory farms aren't really to blame though, they are merely giving the people what they want.. Cheap food....

madmallard wrote: Thats only if you believe that such regulations can represent a good thing no matter what. There's lots of Wal Mart revenue on cheap chinese manufactured crap that is proving you wrong everyday that the majority consumer is not willing to pay the premium cost difference for various goods that are still made in USA by comparison.

no the regulations can be poorly designed. A good example would be the latest net neutrality stuff that creates two levels of internet service, wired and wireless. Or farm susidies that are tilted toward factory farming.

your walmart argument is interesting, but only proves mine slightly more. The fact is, that the US manufacturers of such goods have failed to provide a value proposition above and beyond that of the cheap chinese stuff.. There is no advantage to purchase the more expensive item if the cheaper performs the same or is perceived to perform the same. So... My argument would be that the US manufacturers need to provide things that are not provided. Such as Lodge Mfg making good quality cast iron in the US and certifiying that it contains no lead. While other Cheaper brands cannot.. Or a small farmer who cannot make ends meet due to the large factory farms(and the regulations that favor them) but switches over to organic production and fancy niche products.

I have little love for those who instantly throw up their hands and blame the government for their own short sightedness.

Ranger50 wrote: From what I know, which is information before I moved here, is that the state of KY is/was already on the hook for many millions to bring that plant up to specs about 15 yrs ago. Now those aren't close enough for the new standards. I know they can build a new plant or retrofit, but then good luck getting permits to build the damn thing.

The state was never on the hook for the cost of the plant upgrade. The cost is to the company itself. the state is part of the enforceing authority (can't remember if Kentucky is fully delegated).

The permitting process for the retrofit and upgrade is straightforward, well documented, and the state has been trying to get the company to do it for decades.

It has been the company that has fought it all along. Not the state.

Don't even get me started on coal mining air regulations, as it is the same song and dance.

Heaven forbid we try to clean up a messy operation. And the coal mining air regulations are real easy. Water suppresion. Oh, how horribly complex. BTDT, enforce those exact regulations here.

Ignorant wrote: no the regulations can be poorly designed. A good example would be the latest net neutrality stuff that creates two levels of internet service, wired and wireless. Or farm susidies that are tilted toward factory farming.

Thats my point, i find regulation doesn't narrow its scope enough to be effective FAR more than it does. Its too sweeping and is more often a provable encumberance by simple comparison of those entities that operate without them.

(And thats even a seperate issue from the discussion of wether or not the core issue needed government intervention in the first place. ;p)

Compare that to the other issue you raised on scapegoating which is far harder to pin down without access to more highlevel inside information on that particular business. Its not that it can't be true, its that we have no way to prove or disprove with what we have.

your walmart argument is interesting, but only proves mine slightly more. The fact is, that the US manufacturers of such goods have failed to provide a value proposition above and beyond that of the cheap chinese stuff.. There is no advantage to purchase the more expensive item if the cheaper performs the same or is perceived to perform the same. So... My argument would be that the US manufacturers need to provide things that are not provided. Such as Lodge Mfg making good quality cast iron in the US and certifiying that it contains no lead. While other Cheaper brands cannot.. Or a small farmer who cannot make ends meet due to the large factory farms(and the regulations that favor them) but switches over to organic production and fancy niche products. I have little love for those who instantly throw up their hands and blame the government for their own short sightedness.

I believe the short-sightedness is your own. ;p I think you're putting WAY too much faith in the consumer masses to believe in. I think we can part ways on that issue, but suffice to say if what you're saying is true and all american business competing with overseas production is simply some kind of marketing failure, then there's not much I'm going to say that can convince you. You should straighten them all out and get rich. ;p

madmallard wrote: I believe the short-sightedness is your own. ;p I think you're putting WAY too much faith in the consumer masses to believe in. I think we can part ways on that issue, but suffice to say if what you're saying is true and all american business competing with overseas production is simply some kind of marketing failure, then there's not much I'm going to say that can convince you. You should straighten them all out and get rich. ;p

Do not think the solutions I proposed to be marketing failures. I want them to find a market that is not served by the "cheap" products and then modify your business to meet the needs of that market. It is not easy work.. I've helped my dad reinvent his business about 5 times in the past 20 years. 4 out of the 5 reinventions were deadends... I think the SAS motto applies quite well here.. "Who dares wins". Look at Nucor for an example. They are a small niche steel manufacturer that pays its people for performance and competes globally with the large Chinese mills.

But I find that instead of engaging in market competition, business owners are sometimes more content to just close up shop and retreat to (insert retirement destination here) with their earnings.. Or even more dreadful are those business owners who fail to recognize the shift in desire of the market, do not react appropriately in enough time..

If you'd like to go into a case study we can talk about the lumberyard I worked for in High School and how they held on desperately to their outside sales/commercial model of doing business and only developing retail operations after it was too late.

Foxtrapper basically confirmed my suspicions about the company not wanting to keep the place open and just shutting it down.

Ignorant wrote: Do not think the solutions I proposed to be marketing failures. I want them to find a market that is not served by the "cheap" products and then modify your business to meet the needs of that market. It is not easy work.

the presumption one must work from is that there -is- one to be had. Its just not true most of the time.

Either the quality difference doesn't justify the price in people's minds, or there is actually no quality difference for the price.

But while most people think this is a chicken and egg problem, I think it really became a problem when we opened free-trade agreements with China, not with regulations we have here. Consumers who've had a taste of this agressive global pricewar on consumer goods with a country that has no representative government essentially won't be easily drug back the other way without serious incentive.

And a business's job is to make money and nothing else, or the business dies. If the 'incentives' to the consumer to come back from that brink(whatever form they take)take too much money from the business, lazy or not, the business is going to fold and protect the assets if its a smart business. We can hate on them all we want, but if I'm in steel, and a new regulation is going to slash my profit margin from 15% to 4% (wether increased cost of compliance, or lost business), I'm going to seriously look for somewhere else to put my money into.

hell, some investment accounts have a guaranteed return higher than that margin. If they aren't truly happy in that industry just for their personal satisfaction, how can we hate on them for wanting to make the most on their money and looking into another business or investing venture?

madmallard wrote: We can hate on them all we want, but if I'm in steel, and a new regulation is going to slash my profit margin from 15% to 4% (wether increased cost of compliance, or lost business), I'm going to seriously look for somewhere else to put my money into.

FIne, but I still fail to blame the regulations for the drop in profit margin. Time for the company to reinvest and retool. Time for them to meet the challenge.. If they make the choice that it is not worth their investment to meet new regulations then I have doubts about their solvency and soundness before that point..

I can see poorly run companies that are already near the brink of closing, being pushed over the edge, but any company in good health that cannot react appropriately an closes is using the government as a scapegoat. Just easier to do that than talk about their own incompetence..

My dad started out in real estate and is now doing insurance.. I left college and started working in a food plant, I'm now building helicopters. I have little tolerance for those who are unwilling to change and blame others for their own failure.

kinda double-talk there. . . i kid, i kid.

Iggy:

So, your solution is that a steel company should change and sell something else in order to stay solvent, like insurance, or helicopters?

I fail to see how that is going to help steelworkers, or a small steel town one bit.

There's actually nothing that says they haven't already done this. Who says they haven't moved their assets into a chemical production facility in China, cactus farms in AZ, or a telemarketing business in India?

You seem to fail to recognize that plant closings are a business decision, not evidence of failure.

SVreX wrote: You seem to fail to recognize that plant closings are a business decision, not evidence of failure.

No, I understand it completely. But, on some level, I believe it is a failure... What type of failure, we could debate until the cows come home.

I have a problem with those who blame outside influences(EPA etc..) instead of actually coming out and saying "Gee... We should have been a better company and had better Ideas, but didn't so We decided to close this place instead."

If they came out and said.. " Our plant is a hole and we've been dodging our responsibilites for years(see Foxtrappers post), and it finally caught up to us.." I'd be OK with it.

Okeey Dokeey.

Ignorant wrote: If they came out and said.. " Our plant is a hole and we've been dodging our responsibilites for years(see Foxtrappers post), and it finally caught up to us.." I'd be OK with it.

Cool!

That means you will be "OK" with the politicians who acknowledge the failures of government expansion into areas where intervention was abused or never was needed.

Please expound on the concept that businesses should fail because they've "been dodging responsibilities for years". Would that not also apply to those individuals whose lives are defined by irresponsible choices?