If there’s one thing I’ve learned its that any time someone starts screeching smoot hawley, they either don’t know what they’re talking about or they hope the listener doesn’t.
Obviously total protectionism is really bad but a tariff here and there does not equal protectionism. Reagan did it to great effect.
Reagan is also the grandpappy of NAFTA, which has gotten the Teamsters and their fellow-travelers [pun intended] tied in knots here.
I agree. I just looked on a site that had the records from the U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis.
” Exports were $5.9 billion in 1929, and had declined to $2.9 billion in 1933. This $3 billion decline was roughly 3.8% of our 1929 GDP, which had declined by a 46% over the same period of time. Thus, of the -46% GDP decline, only -3.8% of it was due to a fall in exports. But the gain from import reduction must also be included. (A decline in imports increases GDP). If the import decline is added back to the GDP total (to measure the net trade balance), the “loss” was only $0.2 billion from our GDP — or less than ½ of 1% of the total GDP decline.
Also, notice that the drop Smoot is blamed for, *started* AFTER the crash of 1929. So unless you argue that Smoot caused the crash,,, the argument on Smoot, seems moot!
(sorry, i couldnt resist)
In other words, the document-able “loss” from the Smoot-Hawley Tariff — the “net export” loss — was less than ½ of 1% of our our GDP decline. “
It was a huge part of Roosevelt’s campaign. Somehow, this became a pop culture thing along with “Roosevelt saved us”, with fireside chats,, and “Fear Itself”,,etc.
And if tariffs are so bad, then why do places like Japan love them so much? We can’t get *anything* imported past their protectionist policies. Man they are dumb in Japan, don’t they know that if they opened their markets to our beef and rice farmers, their domestic beef and rice industries would magically flourish i guess?