The United States steel industry, once the world leader, now produces less steel than either China or Japan. American steel producers are threatened by price-competitive suppliers in Brazil, Russia, and other emerging markets. The U.S. steel industry dealt with this threat by launching a lobbying campaign to persuade the U.S. government to impose barriers on the import of foreign steel. The following is an advertisement used by the steel industry in this effort: In recent years, the United States has lost millions of manufacturing jobs because domestic factories have shifted their operations to low-wage countries. Manufacturing assures our national defense, our global leadership, and the living standards of more than 17 million workers. Other nations subsidize their domestic steel industries. Longer-term, subsidized imports will destroy a vital American industry and U.S. jobs. In an uncertain and dangerous world, does America really want to become dependent on Russia, Japan, China, Brazil and developing countries for something so basic as steel? Evaluate this statement. How valid is the argument? Using the Ethical Framework in Chapter 5, analyze the arguments for and against imposing trade barriers on the import of steel from abroad. Should the U.S. government impose trade barriers? What is the effect of barriers on 

(a) U.S. steel producers

(b) U.S. firms that use a lot of steel to manufacture finished products

(c) Consumers of products made with U.S. steel. Recall that Brazil, China, and Russia are emerging markets with substantial poverty. What is the effect of the barriers on these countries?