[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.

[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]

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