<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: 2009 will be tough for steel &#8211; but how tough?</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.nerdsofsteel.com/2009/01/06/2009-will-be-tough-for-steel-but-how-tough/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.nerdsofsteel.com/2009/01/06/2009-will-be-tough-for-steel-but-how-tough/</link>
	<description>Industrial revolutionaries at work</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 18 Feb 2011 12:51:48 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Steel Fabrication by DFI</title>
		<link>http://www.nerdsofsteel.com/2009/01/06/2009-will-be-tough-for-steel-but-how-tough/comment-page-1/#comment-111</link>
		<dc:creator>Steel Fabrication by DFI</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 15 Jan 2009 01:21:50 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.nerdsofsteel.com/?p=571#comment-111</guid>
		<description>Let&#039;s hope it is not as bad as predicted...</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Let&#8217;s hope it is not as bad as predicted&#8230;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Steel Insider</title>
		<link>http://www.nerdsofsteel.com/2009/01/06/2009-will-be-tough-for-steel-but-how-tough/comment-page-1/#comment-109</link>
		<dc:creator>Steel Insider</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 07 Jan 2009 13:27:03 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.nerdsofsteel.com/?p=571#comment-109</guid>
		<description>Mr. Taccone, I read your posts religiously and gain a good deal of knowledge from your insights.  Thanks for sharing your view that some are just being overly pessimistic.

The only caveat I have to your reasoning for steel production to be closer to -3% rather than -10% is that you assume production in 2008 was ideal and not inflated.  

This means that all the steel produced for the speculative offices in the US which now sit vacant, was not only needed, but will be minimally affected.  Auto sales were 13 million, down from 16 million and many estimates peg these at 11-12 million for 2009...meaning steel production for autos was too high in 2008 and will fall in 2009 as well.  

Globally, all the rebar and beams for the construction boom in the Middle East was not only needed, but will also be repeated with only a slight slowdown.  I am leaning to the nasty numbers because of these issues noted here, but also in every economy around the world.  

Again, I enjoy your posts as well as your presentations at conferences.  Keep up the good, intriguing work.

SI</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Mr. Taccone, I read your posts religiously and gain a good deal of knowledge from your insights.  Thanks for sharing your view that some are just being overly pessimistic.</p>
<p>The only caveat I have to your reasoning for steel production to be closer to -3% rather than -10% is that you assume production in 2008 was ideal and not inflated.  </p>
<p>This means that all the steel produced for the speculative offices in the US which now sit vacant, was not only needed, but will be minimally affected.  Auto sales were 13 million, down from 16 million and many estimates peg these at 11-12 million for 2009&#8230;meaning steel production for autos was too high in 2008 and will fall in 2009 as well.  </p>
<p>Globally, all the rebar and beams for the construction boom in the Middle East was not only needed, but will also be repeated with only a slight slowdown.  I am leaning to the nasty numbers because of these issues noted here, but also in every economy around the world.  </p>
<p>Again, I enjoy your posts as well as your presentations at conferences.  Keep up the good, intriguing work.</p>
<p>SI</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

