We received several comments on our article, 12 Things You Probably Don’t Know About Rebar. Two commenters took issue with statements made in a video it contained that compared our business climate to China’s—and found ours wanting. Their comments and my response can be found below. Feel free to add your own comments to this or the original story. We’re always happy to hear from readers, even when they disagree with what we have to say.

Philip Herzegovitch wrote on 9/23/14:
Artificial support from the Chinese government for starters. Regulatory burden here is a red herring. Their people are exposed to a lot greater amounts of hazards. Plus, the narrator even says pollution is not "regulated" like it is here. Not impressed with "the American innovator"

Dave (last name unknown) wrote on 9/29/14:
We aren't losing our manufacturing edge to China because of the "burdensome regulatory climate." That is a small part of a much larger issue. That is just a purely politicized statement. I stopped the video at that statement because I can't take anything else he says seriously.

Phil and Dave
Thanks for commenting. I agree; changing our environmental regulations to match those of China is not a solution. Early this year a friend of mine moved to Shanghai for a work assignment and she has complained bitterly about the air quality in that city. Here we have weather alerts; there they have pollution alerts. Some days the air is so bad she and her husband won’t leave the apartment. I included the American Innovator video in the story not because I agree with everything Paul Akers has to say (he and I agree on very little) but because it illustrates how much construction is taking place in China—which explains how it is possible for that country to consume  more than 20 times as much rebar as we do. It’s hard to wrap your head around that kind of disparity without the type of visuals found in Akers’ video.

If I had it to do over I’d include a disclaimer to the effect of “watch the video for what it shows about the volume of construction work going on in China and not for the economic analysis”.

The Editor