Posted on 02/26/2009 9:37:08 PM PST by TigerLikesRooster
Can Smoot-Hawley only happen in the US?
February 26th, 2009 by Michael
Yesterday in a meeting I was asked by an investor why, even while I have been writing maniacally about the crucial importance of global cooperation, I was so consistently pessimistic about the possibility of the major economies arriving at a grand bargain that will minimize over the long term the cost of the current crisis. I think, in fact, that a nasty fight over trade is very probable and I worry that not only will trade conflict come as a huge shock to Chinas economy, but also that Chinese actions and public statements are actually contributing more to that probability than all the buy-America, buy-Europe talk filling the air.
Let me pluck one reason from the headlines of todays Peoples Daily, the official mouthpiece of the countrys ruling party. The article, titled Buy American cant save the US economy, is based on interviews with a number of Chinese commentators. One question:
Why does the US, which has always advocated trade liberalization, put forward such a clause? Can the Buy American provision offer effective solutions to the US economic problems? What impacts will the implementation of this economic plan produce?
/snip
The US cannot give us another Smoot-Hawley. In 2009 only China and Germany are really in a position to enact the current version of Smoot-Hawley to engineer polices that expand their massive export of overcapacity or, what amounts to the same thing, their massive import of demand and if you want to figure out who might be doing it, you need only to look at the direction of trade surpluses.
(Excerpt) Read more at mpettis.com ...
The CATO institute was also actively involved behind some of Hillary’s policies to destroy families during the ‘90s. I was a family rights activist then (including fathers’ rights). One of the closet anarchist/commie CATO witches (writer for a liberaltarian rag) even called me a “male chauvinist pig.”
“the Hawley-Smoot Tariff Act,...Did it work? Anyone? It did not work, and the United States sank deeper into the Great Depression.”
‘That’s incorrect. The recent anti-American propaganda was based solely on rashes of logical fallacies and has been debunked. See the evidence in comment #13 and comment #15.’
Can you explain your reasoning? I’m not following the connection.
Wow! You had even worse experience with CATO. I’ve despised them for years once I figured out they are libertarian shills for the corporations that sell out America for higher profits
Selling us out is very profitable. Just look at WalMart
The big money figured out they could become much richer turning America into a pathetic consumer economy from the producer oriented economy we used to have
2. The power has been understood and used by all commercial & manufacturing Nations as embracing the object of encouraging manufactures. It is believed that not a single exception can be named.
James Madison to Joseph C. Cabell, 18 Sept. 1828
http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/a1_8_3_commerces18.html
Thank you for the quote. I’m not quite sure as to what the solution is. Some countries have natural resources that others don’t, but for some other products, alternatives to tariffs that I know of are
* Restricting trade with nations that have far lower currency values. Such currencies are often fixed in a number of ways by traders on both sides (theirs and ours).
* Restricting trade with nations that persistently violate human rights, as such nations (communist, fascist,...) are potential enemies. We shouldn’t be funding enemy military buildups—especially by way of hundreds of billions in “bailout” money going to them through American businesses.
* Restricting if not stopping US companies from owning and operating foreign manufacturing plants. Some relatives of executives of those companies are active in radical environmentalism for the purpose of regulating small US competition down.
We’re only beginning to see some of the economic consequences to doing so little about it now, and probably other, more severe consequences are on the way.
I was thinking something simple... like doing our own manufacturing... :-)
You said — “I would love to see that happen!”
Well, it would happen, if it were not for those so *vehemently opposed* to the U.S. doing their own manufacturing (and I’m talking about so-called “Americans”) and them *demanding* (somehow telling us it’s better for us) to send all manufacturing everywhere else in the world *except* here in the United States.
I’ve got to wonder if these kinds of people are really Americans...
So because:
- GDP declined from 91.5 billion in 1930 to 68.4 billion (-25.2% of 9.2% CAGR) and did not reach the 1930 level until 1936
and
- Unemployment went from 8.9% in 1930 to 24.9% in 1933 and did not reach 1930 levels until 1942
The Smoot-Hawley Tariff act passed in 1930 was not to blame?
Can’t wait to see that explanation.....................................
You said — “Pat Buchanan was right about this years ago and I supported him for years. He is very bad on Israel and the Jihad.... But right on most else”
Yeah, I’ve stayed away from Buchanan because of him being such a Jew/Israel hater. I just don’t want to deal with someone like that...
“The Smoot-Hawley Tariff act passed in 1930 was not to blame?
Cant wait to see that explanation.....................................”
The banking system was a much larger factor than foreign trade, at least in the United States.
During the years 1930-33 one third of the American money supply evaporated as thousands of banks collapsed. There was no FDIC to make depositors whole and Fed failed to keep the money supply from collapsing.
In contrast foreign trade comprised less than 5% of American GNP during those years. Smoot-Hawley impacted some of our trading partners in a big way, but as far as the US goes Smoot Hawley pales in comparison to the monetary contraction.
I agree about the monetary contraction. The Fed did the wrong thing and did not supply sufficient liquidity. That is one thing that Bernanke is doing right. Smoot-Hawley also served to further restrict liquidity exacerbating the monetary contraction.
Smoot-Hawley couldn’t really affect liquidity, liquidity is strictly a banking/ credit market phenomenon. It could affect GNP by interfering with trade. Smoot-Hawley mostly harmed foreign concerns that sold to Americans, and at the next remove harmed American industries that those foreign firms would then have purchased from. But we are talking at most 5% of the American GNP. The negative effects of Smoot-Hawley were borne more by foreign firms than by American firms.
Make that anyone who has decided to start a manufacturing business, planned an overview of it, designed it (floorplanning, etc.) and run it until making a profit.
Yes but even before the Bill was signed many of our foreign trading partners retaliated with tariffs on our goods.
"Retaliation began long before the bill was enacted into law in June 1930. As it passed the House of Representatives in May 1929, boycotts broke out and foreign governments moved to raise rates against American products, even though rates could be moved up or down in the Senate or by the conference committee. By September 1929, Hoover's administration had received protest notes from 23 trading partners, but threats of retalitory actions were ignored.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.