Yes Ore No - part the third

In answer to a diminishing number of requests, I offer up another data point in the argument over tariffs. Studious reader will recall "Yes Ore No - part the second" which contains this perfect gem of logic:

Now, you can't have steel, or aluminum, without the source ores. It's not a case of 'where there's a will there's a way'. Yeah gotta have ore.

Putting up tariffs is done for one or two reasons (mayhaps both); 1) to finance the government (here's the data) or 2) to generate excess profit to fledgling domestic industry. As stated, steel isn't fledgling, and aluminum is dead as a door nail. Steel is nearly so, based on known reserves of iron ore. We used to have bunches, but burned up much of it building ships and tanks during WWII. Moreover, to make specialty steels, other minerals are needed.

Which brings us to today's NYT missive about Finnish (mostly, stainless) steel. It's a case where there's no possibility of making such steel with American resources, and the amount of money that tariffs will bring is a spit in the ocean of government budget. Stupid is as stupid does.

Perhaps most important, there are no active chromium mines in North America.

You can't make stainless without chrome. Nickel and molybdenum are commonly added as well.