International nickel prices continue to rise

Nickel prices on the Asian SHFE have continued to rise today and have risen by up to 1.8%. Nickel prices on the European LME also rose by more than 1.5% shortly after the start of trading and have since risen by more than 2.4% to over $15,400 per tonne.

LME nickel up more than 9% since last week

This means that the price of LME nickel has risen by more than 9.7% since last Thursday, 9 April 2025. This should already classify the reports of price cuts in stainless steel, which were desperately scattered by some sources this morning, as outdated and no longer relevant.

Switzerland: Steel mills don’t want state aid?

In the European Union, domestic steel makers are famous and notorious for the fact that there can never be enough economic aid from the state – whether in monetary or protectionist form. Billions of euros have already been pledged or granted by the EU and member states to halt the alleged decline of their steel production.

Swiss steel mills complain about conditions for subsidies

If you look at Switzerland, on the other hand, there is likely to be a great deal of surprise at the steel mills there, who do not want to know about the generous state aid for energy costs that has been available since the end of 2024. The main reason: the conditions for utilising the aid would interfere too much with companies’ entrepreneurial freedom. For example, environmental requirements must be met for the so-called bridging aid.

Steel managers should forego bonus payments

However, the condition that the managers of the companies affected would have to waive their bonus payments is probably more important. How quickly state aid becomes unattractive and an encroachment on entrepreneurial freedom as soon as ailing companies, allegedly suffering from high energy costs, forego subsidies as soon as managers’ salaries are to be cut. Will the large steel and aluminium producers in Switzerland not be so badly off in the end?

Swiss model a template for the European Union?

And what would the situation be like in the European Union if member states and the European Commission were to demand the same conditions from their steel and aluminium plants as in Switzerland? Presumably the clamour for subsidies and market protection would quickly disappear. After all, ‘entrepreneurial‘* freedom could come under pressure. (*we ask ourselves what such corporations have in common with real entrepreneurship)

EU interferes massively with entrepreneurial freedom – but not with steelworks

As is so often the case in European politics, there are double standards when it comes to ‘market economy’ and ‘non-market economy’ measures. This is clearly illustrated by two examples. While the Commission does not limit the inflow of raw materials such as iron ore or ferrous and non-ferrous scrap into the EU, it wants to regulate its scrap exports even more strictly and even ban them if necessary – ignoring the fact that this is a non-market economy intervention in the entrepreneurial freedom of the domestic recycling industry with its countless small and medium-sized companies and accepting the loss of competition, jobs and companies.

Double standards in European economic policy

At the same time, the Commission wants to regulate the inflow of steel and other products more strictly, be it through the Carbon Border Tax CBAM or a tightening of the Country of Origin rules to include a Melted and Poured component, which is intended to close loopholes and strengthen the EU’s trade defence tools.

Especially if the origins benefit from non-market economy conditions and overcapacities that distort global trade in the eyes of the EU. However, the EU only thinks in one direction of the value chain and continues to allow raw materials and preliminary products such as millions of tonnes of steel slabs to cross its borders unhindered – even from so-called non-market-economy origins.

EU has created steel market with ‘non-market conditions’ itself

The fact that the European Union is still in second place worldwide in terms of steel overcapacity (directly behind China) and has more trade defence instruments in place for steel products than almost any other country clearly leads to ‘non-market economy’ conditions in the domestic market and only serves to protect a powerful steel oligopoly that has no interest in a real market economy and competition-promoting conditions.

We would like to thank our loyal reader, who recently contacted us with the question of how the EU’s News Speak on ‘non-market conditions’ should be interpreted in relation to ‘market conditions’.