A comeback for protectionism?

Washington Times ^ | Wednesday, July 24, 2002 | Stephen Moore

[JohnHuang2]

One of the contributing factors to the market meltdown is the bearish policy environment in Washington

[JohnHuang2]

Wednesday, July 24, 2002

Quote of the Day by dead

[brat]

"For the first time in two decades the free trade movement is in retreat."

And thats just where it belongs...in retreat! Its dammed near destroyed this once great country!

[Free the USA]

So how have the effects of free trade been anything but benificial to the country as a whole?

[Free the USA]

Index Bump

[OrthodoxPresbyterian]

"For the first time in two decades the free trade movement is in retreat." And thats just where it belongs...in retreat! Its dammed near destroyed this once great country! 2 posted on 7/24/02 1:47 AM Pacific by brat

That's silly.

American consumers enjoying the option of buying a Swiss-made watch, a Japanese-made watch, or an American-made watch never hurt this Nation one bit.

[Willie Green]

In the U.S., import duties rose to about 50 percent of import prices by the late 1930s. The result was a global depression and a plunging of living standards here and abroad.

Looks like the globalist free traitors at the Cato Institute are trying to reinvigorate their convoluted, revisionist and totally discredited theories regarding the Smoot-Hawley tariff.

Smoot-Hawley wasn't enacted until 1930, AFTER the market crash of '29.
Furthermore, trade only amounted to 6% of GNP at the time and declined to 2% of GNP by 1932. The bulk of this decline is directly attributable to the 31% decline in GNP and 25% unemployment rate precipitated by the market crash. The effects of Smoot-Hawley, which only applied to 1/3 of imports, were negligible in comparison.

Of course, as is characteristic of revisionism, the dimbulbs at the Cato Institute prefer to distort facts to suit their own political agenda.

[gcruse]

 One would like to believe that if George W. Bush knew three
months ago what he knows today, he would never have foolishly
agreed to impose 30 percent steel tariffs

I doubt it.  The purpose is to buy enough labor votes
to get back into office.  The fact that, according to
Rush Limbaugh and others, six times as many jobs
were lost in other sectors as were saved in the steel
industry falls on deaf ears.  The job losers won't know
who to blame, labor will still vote democrat, we
pay more for steel, and the stock market tanks.
Not to mention counter-tariffs by our trading
partners that will hurt other industries.

But that's the difference between conservatives
and Republicans.  Conservatives have principles.
Republicans have will to power.

[brat]

They enjoyed those same options under Fair Trade, without the loss of manufacturing and liveable wage jobs.

[OrthodoxPresbyterian]

They enjoyed those same options under Fair Trade, without the loss of manufacturing and liveable wage jobs.

"Fair Trade" is nothing more than the Government keeping Taxes and Regulation low enough that Domestic producers can out-produce competitors. It has nothing whatsoever to do with an insane, Interventionist Welfare State attempting to "control" Trade via Punitive Tariffs. If your Domestic Taxes and Regulation destroy your Domestic Production base, all that Punitive Tariffs accomplish is to keep you from importing anything either.

If Domestic Industry is being starved by High Taxes and Regulation, it does no good to institutionalize their disadvantages by erecting Tariff Walls. It's the taxes and regulation, stupid. "Protect" a starving man by building walls around him, but continue to deprive him of food, and he will still starve to death behind those "protective" walls.

Protectionists should stop drooling in their shoes, "Tariffs good... tariffs good...." and work for lower Domestic Taxes -- not higher Trade Taxes, of all the stupid, anti-capitalist, and (quite literally) counter-productive ideas.