Posted on 09/11/2009 7:17:37 PM PDT by Orange1998
France and Germany were the world’s two greatest trading partners .....
Often some poster in the UK would right in " I have a part from a Me109 that crashed here in 1941. It has a part number of XXXXX-123 Can anyone tell me what it is?" Now ending the quote. There are folks that have complete catalogs concerning every part that went into German aircraft ( kinky - I know.)
That would often bring a response: " Yes, you have part of a tailplane support, made in a French factory about 19XX". With a little checking, I found there was no effort by the French or Dutch or Belgies or any of the Nazi occupied nation the destroy their war industries. Hell, the good burghers of Rotterdam went all out to save those oil tanks to make a nice present to the incoming Germans.
Always keep in mind, there is no such thing as 'free trade', the real and more accurate term is 'labor arbitrage'.
It can be argued that S-H made it worse, but not a) how much (because there were so many other things happening at the time, with insufficient data collection, so there is little way to tease out effects of S-H by itself), b) for how long, or c) what lasting effects it had, since many of the trading partners who complained the loudest about S-H had far more pressing issues to complain about in a few years’ time.
The point is that the “free trade” crowd hasn’t seen their agenda stand up to the facts and data collected during this downturn. Trade has fallen faster now that we have “free-er” trade than in the Depression, so free[er] trade doesn’t stop, nor even slows down, the effects of a credit collapse, and putting in this tire tariff isn’t likely to produce results as GOOD as those under Smoot-Hawley.
In short, for those worrying about a trade war now: stop worrying. We had better trade stats in the 30’s during the S-H trade war than we have now.
“Actually, FDR is the father of our current Free Trader Globalism. It was FDR who organized Bretton Woods....”
One thing that Hoover/FDR didn’t have to contend with was an astronomic trade deficit and a multi-trillion dollar debt owned by a Communist Country that, in a whim, could implode our economy in a debt dump.
If any of our “lien” holders decide it is no longer prudent to hold the monstrous debt of our country and consequently no longer deems the dollar as having any value as a standard of security, then we are history.
Obama’s desire to placate the unions and other special interests by placing arbitrary tariffs on “friendly” trading partners is pretty stupid. I guess we should of thought of that when we pushed for Favored Nation treatment of China and the consequent support of their entry into the WTO.
It is kind of ironic that most of the big tire manufacturers’ factories are sitting in China. You can’t change the rules in the middle of the game...especially when you are no longer holding the cards.
The WTO will settle this against the USA and Obama will be off the hook with the unions because..well, shoot he tried to protect them<<<<sarc
LOL--good one. The point is actually the opposite: the "free trade" crowd was warning you that if you want the trade deficit to fall you should cause a recession. And the numbers bear them out. Again.
In that it gave him employment? By tipping the scale of "labor arbitrage" in his favor?
No. Presenting the data in this format (the chart's from Heritage) challenges the assertion that GDP rose in spite of S-H, because it shows that there is an inverse relationship between GDP and the average tariff rate*.
That being said, the assertion I just made can be challenged, but not by returning to the original assertion. The best one can do is argue that there is "no relationship," or "insufficient data."
_____
*We know that S-H raised the tariff rates on a whole slew of imports (and that U.S. exports plummeted), but we don't know what tariffs were cut in the years following.
That’s like predicting if you walk off the edge of a building, you’re going to fall.
Any downturn in economic activity will result in imports decreasing, and since a huge chunk of the imports are directly consumed by consumers (oil/oil products and Wal-mart crap), it was a pretty easy prediction to make; so my response to this prediction is “Duh, no, *really*?”
Here’s something the free trade mob didn’t predict: that our current account deficit, plus absurd Keynesian spending during a recession would lead to our trading partners calling for the US dollar to lose reserve status.
Consider the Aircraft built by Ford and General Motors....
By switching from autos to aircraft, we were able to built 300,000 a/c to hammer Hitler and Tojo et. al. via the air, vs. some grunt with a rifle. Ask any vet from 'the other side' about dealing with Jabos.
When old man Ford saw that Hitler had his labor costs under control, how many auto plants did he build in Germany prior to WW2. Add in how many German tanks that were built by Opel, a division of GM which had to be taken out at great cost to our forces.
Now fast forward to the Korean War: What caused the greatest loss of life amongst the Chinese 'volunteers'? No insult meant to the Marine Corp riflemen, but cold and lack of food were far more effective.
Should China try it again, think they'll have any problems supplying their military now?
Here’s something the free trade mob didn’t predict: that our current account deficit, plus absurd Keynesian spending during a recession would lead to our trading partners calling for the US dollar to lose reserve status.
Can't speak for Keynesians, I'm not one myself (it's more in line with protectionist thinking), so you can't stick that failed philosophy on the "free trade mob." In any case, the numbers show that our trade deficit (in goods) falls during recessions, and rises when our economy is expanding. That's a far cry from your contention that we should return to the boom times of the 1930's, when we ran a trade surplus (generally), and all allegedly shoud have been well.
All for retaining American jobs, but China is essentially our banker and we just pissed our banker off. Wise move?
This is going to lead to a TREAD WAR!
No. Presenting the data in this format (the chart's from Heritage) challenges the assertion that GDP rose in spite of S-H, because it shows that there is an inverse relationship between GDP and the average tariff rate*.Can you be specific about years and dollar amounts instead of a graph where that kind of specificity is hidden?
Why the obfuscating tell-nothing graphics? Does your point rally hold no water?
I'll also point out that Smoot-Hawley was repealed in 1934. If you intend to continue insisting that we narrow our focus, perhaps you should get together with the person who made the original assertion.
I challenged the assertion that our GDP rose in the years after Smoot-Hawley ...In light of the numbers in my post #175?
Surely you are jesting ...
Jesting about what? Please be specific.
Never mind. Numbers don’t seem to mean much to you ... g’day.
I think it’s pretty clear that you are afraid of them, I was just trying to find out why.
Hey, can you help me out here? Please try and explain my exchange with this Jim character. He’s bolted.
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.