Thread by @janycemcgregor

I've slept on it and I'm still thinking about this phrase in yesterday's announcement:
"In monitoring for surges,
either country may treat products made with steel that is melted and poured in
North America separately from products that are not..." 1/?

I'm not an expert on the weeds of the transshipment disputes between Canada and the U.S. on steel, but bottom line: not every mill in Canada makes steel products from iron ore per se. Some work from scrap, some work from slab/other input from outside North America. 2/

So let's say I'm Stelco and I'm trying to decide whether to take my idled blast furnace and bring it back online... or import slab, and if so, from where... I would think this language is significant. Correct me if I'm wrong Trade Twitter or Steel Twitter (is that a thing?) 3/

Alternatively, let's say I'm an American slab producer and I'm wondering if I should increase my capacity since there's a global suprlus 'n all... this might make me think NAm demand for my slab could grow thanks to this managed trade. So basically: no wonder USW likes this. 4/

Who are losers? Secondary mills whose business plans are based on foreign steel inputs. I'm told we have some of those in Canada. They have to change their supply chains or risk being fingered in these "surge" investigations, right? Watch this space. 5/

Also, Seade can say what he wants, but the final lines of that Mexican agreement look a lot like a quota to me. Grow in this way but only this way, or else here come your tariffs... that's absolutely managed trade language. 6/

And let's remember: not all foreign steel is dumped or unfairly priced. Sometimes it's just the right product for the job. Sometimes it's available when North American steel isn't. Sometimes it's competitively priced, but not unfairly priced. etc. Foreign isn't always bad?! 7/

Unless... you're just in a protectionist mindset. And domestic concerns/politics trump your interest in globally efficient and competitive supply chains. Which... oh nevermind, we've all been covering the Trump administration long enough for this to be a rhetorical question. 8/

This steel dispute fascinates me because it's basically the ultimate globalist vs mercantilist fight. I bet scholars will study it for years. Was it in the long-term best interest of North American trading bloc? Or is it just economic sandbagging for manufacturers? On verra. 9/n