Steve Bannon’s Bad History

Wall Street Journal ^ | September 19, 2017 | Douglas A. Irwin

[reaganaut1]

So far, the Trump administration’s trade policy has seen an internal division among economic nationalists and “globalists” on the president’s senior staff. The economic nationalists, and the president himself, believe protectionism will strengthen the American economy. “Look at the 19th century,” said former White House chief strategist Steve Bannon in his recent “60 Minutes” interview. “What built America’s so called ‘American system,’ from Hamilton to Polk to Henry Clay to Lincoln to the Roosevelts? A system of protection of our manufacturing, financial system that lends to manufacturers, OK, and the control of our borders.”

In the nationalists’ narrative, high tariffs were responsible for America’s growth and industrialization in the 19th century. This is not only a misreading of history, it’s a bad policy prescription for the 21st century. A return to high tariffs would sap America’s economy today.

Mr. Bannon’s simple story is historically and economically off base. As Treasury secretary, Alexander Hamilton wanted moderate tariffs, not protectionist duties. In his day, tariffs accounted for nearly all federal revenue. He wanted to keep imports flowing so he could finance the federal government’s Revolutionary War debt and secure the young nation’s credit. President Polk, far from being a protectionist, was a small-government Democrat. He slashed tariffs dramatically in 1846.

Mr. Bannon even gets the Roosevelts wrong. Theodore Roosevelt recognized the need to reduce tariffs but was uncharacteristically afraid of crossing old-guard Republicans in Congress, leaving the dirty work to his Republican successor, William Howard Taft. And Franklin D. Roosevelt was a “globalist” who got Congress to delegate tariff authority to the executive so that import duties could be cut in trade agreements with other countries.

Economic nationalists always conveniently skip the story of the 1930 Smoot-Hawley tariff, probably because it doesn’t fit their narrative.

[TN4Bush]

Everything “they” say is bad turns out to be a good thing.

[Wolfie]

Germany’s VAT tax, which works just like a tariff, works well for them.

[rlmorel]

As if any conservative gives a Rat’s Ass what the Wall Street Journal thinks anymore. They have shown their colors often enough.

[rlmorel]

A tariff should be used as a last resort in unfair trade situations.

But that fact that it shouldn’t be used often doesn’t mean it shouldn’t be used at all.

[old curmudgeon]

Twits have no idea what they are talking about.

I lived and worked many years under a system in which we primarily bought from and sold to our fellow Americans.

Those years were so much more fun and much easier to make a good living than it is today,

Anyone who says that the dims’ version of free trade is good for this country either knows not what he is talking about or h is grinding his personal ax.

[LS]

Bannon 100% right. We had iron tariffs in place til the Civil War. Now. Some of the industries such as kerosene/oil never haf protectionism but were not regulated at all til 1892.

After the CW, iron tariffs were eliminated but the US Navy & subsidized railroads consumed almost all steel.

It is true that Carnegie & Rockerfeller largely succeeded by relentlessly lowering costs.

[txrefugee]

The globalist toadies at the WSJ hate Bannon and Trump because they believe in putting America First. They are to be regarded as the enemies of freedom and our sovereignty.

[1Old Pro]

Sad, the wsj has gone globalist.

[ForYourChildren]

“As Treasury secretary, Alexander Hamilton wanted moderate tariffs, not protectionist duties.”

They shouldn’t be quoting post-war Alexander Hamilton for anything.

He is the reason we are in this overreaching government mess today.

Aaron Burr did us all a favor.

[Lurkinanloomin]

The Cheap Labor Express Journal has not been on our side for decades.
They have been a propaganda organ for open borders/amnesty for a long time.

[central_va]

In the nationalists’ narrative, high tariffs were responsible for America’s growth and industrialization in the 19th century. This is not only a misreading of history, it’s a bad policy prescription for the 21st century. A return to high tariffs would sap America’s economy today.

This is not true and total BS.

[central_va]

This is WSJ tacitly defending the income tax. Progs run that place now.

[central_va]

The impact of trade was miniscule when compared to the size of the overall economic contraction.

Read more: American Thinker: Smoot-Hawley and the Depression

[central_va]

Good God, after 40 years of offshoring and trade deficits you’d think we could try something else?

[central_va]

Let me explain. The U.S. economy began contracting in 1929 and reached bottom in 1933. After that point, economic activity began rising, but GDP did not exceed the level of 1929 until 1941, some twelve years later and on the eve of U.S. involvement in WWII. As the economy slowed for the first five years of the Great Depression, so did the level of exports and imports. But the size of any trade imbalance was quite small when compared to the level of economic contraction. The extent of the overall slowdown was so great that over the course of five years, one and a third of a year's worth of economic activity at the level of 1929 was lost. This is shown in the last column of the blue-tinted rows.

--Dennis Sevakis

[SaraJohnson]

Globalism only works for the wealthy of the world. Workers and small businesses are screwed. Google and Fakebook are too big, too.

[Pollster1]

The globalist toadies at the WSJ hate Bannon and Trump because they believe in putting America First. They are to be regarded as the enemies of freedom and our sovereignty.

I thought the globalist toadies at the WSJ and Chambers of Commerce hated Bannon and Trump because they believe in cheap, illegal labor. They don't want immigration fixed, because they want illegals to come and to be abused for profit. Perhaps I was mistaken, or perhaps we are both right.