Some articles mentioning the "legacy" costs from those better informed:

http://washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A51906-2002Mar6.html

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A58175-2002Mar7.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2002/03/08/opinion/08KRUG.html

>Come now - the steel industry's problems are all health and pension costs???
>That's gotta be a crock if I ever heard one!!!
>
>Maybe if they had modernized when they should have they would still be producing quality steel at costs and profits that would easily let them meet those obligations. Obligations are obligations and company planners/ecomonists are supposed to keep those obligations in mind when deciding how best to 'spend' the profits. They may well have chosen courses that now make those obligations onerous, but that should in no way absolve them from those obligations. By failing to protect those obligations they have let their shareholders down and they should be rewarded accordingly.
>
>Someone else has mentioned that the QUALITY of U.S. steel is way down compared to product available on the market.
>So we've got a strategically critical product of inferior quality and that situation is going to be rewarded???
>
>The steel works owners will get rich while the boys and girls on the battlefields have weapons and defenses made of inferior quality steel. Why does this feel wrong to me?
>
>It seems that the Enron fiasco could well expose practises that could cause a melt-down of many many large corporations. My guess is that, behind the scenes, government officials are working feverishly to head-off any such eventuality.
>Who really wins if they do that??? Yep, the scoundrels who perpetrated the problems in the first place. Quite a system, eh???????