The Venerable History of Protectionism

NY Times ^ | 2008 | Robert E. Lighthizer

[sunrise_sunset]

"Reagan often broke with free-trade dogma. He arranged for voluntary restraint agreements to limit imports of automobiles and steel (an industry whose interests, by the way, I have represented). He provided temporary import relief for Harley-Davidson. He limited imports of sugar and textiles. His administration pushed for the "Plaza accord" of 1985, an agreement that made Japanese imports more expensive by raising the value of the yen."

[sunrise_sunset]

Reagan cut import quotas on Japanese cars in the early 1980's which is one reason they started building plants all over the South.

[TBP]

Tariffs are generally bad economic policy, but can sometimes be effective foreign policy.

[Empire View]

Believe it or not, I have heard conservatives argue that it was “free trade agreements” that caused Japanese car companies to build plants stateside.

[econjack]

The first line of the article:

Now that John McCain is formally the presumptive presidential nominee of the Republican Party,...

Why are we reading an article from 2008?

[ConservativeInPA]

We shouldn’t get too hung up on terms like protectionism and free trade. Competitive trade may be a better term. That is to say we should desire competition as long as it on a relatively equal playing field.

[Mr. K]

Whenever another country does something to affect our trade with them, they should have a clear understanding that we will do the same thing BACK to them.

That is the only trade policy I would like to see.

And if I understand Trump at all he would do it back twice as bad.

[central_va]

Good article.

[P-Marlowe]

There is no such thing as Free Trade. Those who advocate that the United States unilaterally let everything come in without reciprocal agreements are fools. We need to be as tough on our competitors as they are on us. In fact, we need to be tougher. No more Mr. Nice Guy.

[ConservativeInPA]

I agree that we should do the same back. However, there are other situations that call for a different approach. A number of countries lack intellectual property laws and a legal system similar to ours. Then there are nation states that subsidize business and industry. That isn’t an equal playing field and doing the same back to them may not be achievable or wanted.

[Wallace T.]

Are tariffs always bad? One of the grievances the Southern states had against the Federal government was the high tariffs imposed to protect Northern industries. Southern prosperity was built upon the export of crops, especially cotton, to European markets. Britain and France produced manufactured goods more inexpensively than their competitors in the Northern states. The Southern elite wanted access to the cheaper goods. Lincoln, a former Whig, was a strong advocate of high tariffs, and regarded the pro-tariff Henry Clay as his political model. Lincoln's election indicated that high tariffs were more likely. Remember that Lincoln made it clear that he would not interfere with slavery where it existed. The Western territories not yet admitted to the Union were generally unsuitable for large scale, slave labor agriculture.

The Union won the war. After Appomattox, high tariffs stayed in place more or less intact until the days of Franklin Roosevelt. During that period, American manufacturing blossomed and this country became the preeminent industrial power in the world. The nation also prospered as never before and we assimilated millions of immigrants.

Granted, we are not in the 1865-1929 period. In the current environment, protecting domestic industry may not be necessary. Onerous regulations, high taxes, and the costs of union labor are likely as responsible for the de-industrialization of America as liberal trade laws. Were the regulatory and tax burdens ratched back to the levels of the pre-New Deal era, the costs of doing manufacturing and mining would drop drastically. That alone would lower the incentive for producers to move operations offshore.

[Mr. K]

a proportionate response, no matter what they do... not necessarily the exact same thing

[Mr. K]

Someone here once said that Abraham Lincoln was asked why he just doesn’t let the southern states go, and he replied “then who would pay for the government?”

Anyone know if this is true or not?

[ConservativeInPA]

That works

[sunrise_sunset]

Because it pertains to what is happening now.

[Wallace T.]

This is likely an apocryphal quote. Some traditionalists and white separatists cite statements, especially of an anti-Semitic nature, attributed to the Founding Fathers (e.g. Franklin supposedly saying that the Jews would take over America), that cannot be traced to any sources earlier than the 1930s. In this instance, the one possible source of this quote came from John Baldwin, a Confederate politician from Virginia, who unsuccessfully tried to persuade Lincoln to withdraw Federal troops from Fort Sumter.

Source: http://valley.lib.virginia.edu/VoS/personalpapers/documents/augusta/p3baldwininterview.html#baldwin2

Lincoln was a high tariff man and wanted to preserve the Union, but other than Baldwin's testimony, there is no other verification of the supposed quote.

[DesertRhino]

“Tariffs are generally bad economic policy, but can sometimes be effective foreign policy.”

Except of course when they fund 90% of government the first 50 years of this country, and the majority of the funding of the government until 1910.
The founders all happily used tariffs as the main funding source.

[Boogieman]

Because, obviously, if the staunch conservatives at the NY Times supported protectionism in 2008, we should totally overlook Trump supporting protectionism in 2015.

[Boogieman]

“Except of course when they fund 90% of government the first 50 years of this country, and the majority of the funding of the government until 1910.”

Tell ya what. If we can get the federal government back to pre-1910 size, THEN I’ll be more than happy to entertain the possibility that tariffs can solve our problems.

[SaraJohnson]

It’s libertarians who laid the groundwork for no holds barred trade where we get screwed every time.