I know you keynesians and other interventionists like to pretend otherwise, but macroeconomics, as a "field" separated from fundamentally micro concepts, is bunk. It bastardizes Say's Law into a strawman the rejects that phony product, discarding micro principles (and all rationality) with it.
Put another way, if you don't like the micro devices that are being used to demonstrate the failure of of Hamiltonian interventionism, then by all means challenge them. Simply asserting "well, this is macro and micro doesn't apply" though and dismissing them out of hand won't cut it.
And many sources of economic growth are known while the growth is proceeding not only after.
That's concurrent knowledge, not ex ante.
Besides if your contention were true it only underlines my point and makes the choice of any policy a blind shot.
Garbage. The entire notion of economically-guided policy making is built upon relationships and observations derived from experience. We derived a theory of price, for example, after observing prices work in practice. Same holds for policy in that having seen what works and what does not work in the past, we can make highly educated predictions about what will work and what will not work now.
It is no inanity to point to the lack of replicatibility in economic history as a weakness in trying to make economics a science like chemistry.
Why does it have to be a science like chemistry in order to assert valid truthful relationships, fakeit? There is more to life than experimentation in a laboratory and to suggest otherwise while simultaneously rejecting all that falls outside of the laboratory is, by definition, an inanity.
To take the highly refined assumptions of an econometric study as productive of indisputable truth is inanity.
If the sources I referenced are as disputable as you content, then why can't you refute so much as a single word of any of them nor produce the names of anybody else who has credibly done so?
Communism, as theorized by Marx, was not what was seen in the USSR since his theory was to be applied in an advance capitalist society not a backward one.
Letting your true colors (pink) show again, eh fakeit? You are mistaken as well in that you ascribe Soviet communism's failure to the difference of its relative hegelian stage model along side the one predicted by Marx. The soviet failure had nothing to do with that and everything to do with the simple irrefutable fact that Marx himself screwed up big time on the core underlying assumption of his system: a labor theory of value which is, quite simply, impossible and unrealized in the existing world.
Tariff issues are NOT just economic but often primarily political.
Indeed. And as such they are subject to political pressures by rent seeking interests pursuing illicit personal gains through the power of the state and at the expense of everybody else.
Economists arguing that they don't work economically ignore the political aspects.
Garbage. An entire school of economic thought - public choice - is devoted to the economic comprehension of political factors and interactions. But being a Keynesian/marxian/interventionist of some sort, you probably have no interest in hearing what they have to say.
Also ignored is the fact that there was NO Free Market for the Americans to compete in.
That claim is of no consequence to my position as economists have long recognized and compensated for the fact that other countries engage in non-free forms of trade, finding that conventional attempts to counter it by equal and opposite intervention only exacerbates the problem. Read Friedman.
You used Taussig to support your argument that the tariffs were counterproductive wrt iron but why don't we see what he said about cotton manufacture?
Why don't we? Here's an interesting passage from his concluding remarks on cotton textiles:
It has appeared that the introduction of the cotton manufacture took place before the era of protection, and that—looking aside from the anomalous conditions of the period of restriction from 1808 to 1815—its early progress, though perhaps somewhat promoted by the minimum duty of 1816, would hardly have been much retarded in the absence of protective duties
Of course his study of the cotton textile industry has been augmented in modern times by Paul David who employed empirical evidence and concluded that no discernable gain was reached to the producers in terms of advancing the industry, all the gain having been in personal profits they reaped off the state policy.
Taussig did NOT conclude the tariff was counterproductive as you implied in your iron example but merely that it was of mixed result helping some protected industries but not others.
Are you blind, stupid, or both? 1812 was BEFORE the period of heavy protection. Look at Taussig's CONCLUSION about cotton:
It has appeared that the introduction of the cotton manufacture took place before the era of protection, and that—looking aside from the anomalous conditions of the period of restriction from 1808 to 1815—its early progress, though perhaps somewhat promoted by the minimum duty of 1816, would hardly have been much retarded in the absence of protective duties.
See that, fakeit? He makes two points: 1. Cotton textiles industrialed before the protectionist tariffs were put in place and 2. subsequent industrialization was NOT helped by protective duties. To suggest anything else is to lie.
You keep trying to pretend that this is an entirely economic issue when it is far more. It involved the wrenching away of the control of the economy from the British to a condition which could allow the development of a real market something the British took pains for two hundred years to prevent.
How many names can you call someone attempting to cover your deceptions? Keynesian Kenyan Marxist Statist Yankee Lincoln worshipper blah, blah blah.
Economies develop from people having foresight of coming conditions thus concurrent is just phase two of the becoming.
Causality must be proven through a scientific procedure. Economics attempts this but in not entirely successful due to its need to assume away most of the problems.
My statement wrt the USSR is not refuted by the correct statement that the labor theory of value (not of Marx's invention in any case) was flawed that doesn't change the truth that Marxian theory was not designed for a backward economy. It was seized by Lenin as a weapon to achieve and rationalize power and it only worked as long as the rulers were willing to kill millions. That willingness, Thank God, disappeared.
Taussig makes no definite conclusion about the utility of the tariff just states that it might not have worked as intended. Who argues with that? And he hedges even that with plenty of "appears" "perhaps" and "hardlys" and your quote ignores his other ambivalent remarks.
Of course, it is a lie that I made any claim that cotton industry was not established before the Embargo, Tariff and War. It was very small with most coming from home industries not factories with machinery. And it is also a lie that Taussig claimed it was not helped when your own quote says it was "perhaps" helped or would have not been any worse off without it. But these policies have nothing to do with Hamilton anyway being produced and controlled by men with only a shred of his understanding.