1924 Republican Platform (Very protectionist)

patriotpost ^ | 1924 | Sane Republicans

[central_va]

The Tariff

We reaffirm our belief in the protective tariff to extend needed protection to our productive industries. We believe in protection as a national policy, with due and equal regard to all sections and to all classes. It is only by adherence to such a policy that the well being of the consumers can be safeguarded that there can be assured to American agriculture, to American labor and to American manufacturers a return to perpetrate American standards of life. A protective tariff is designed to support the high American economic level of life for the average family and to prevent a lowering to the levels of economic life prevailing in other lands.

In the history of the nation the protective tariff system has ever justified itself by restoring confidence, promoting industrial activity and employment, enormously increasing our purchasing power and bringing increased prosperity to all our people.

[central_va]

Gee, the Republican Party was for protectionism before it was against protectionism.

[central_va]

Free Traitor™ bump.

[JPJones]

Tariffs are an important part of our economic history:

“Whereas it is necessary for that support of government, for the discharge of the debts of the United States, and the encouragement and protection of manufactures, that duties be laid on goods, wares and merchandise” Tariff of 1789,

Signed into law by G. Washington it spurred a huge shipbuilding industry (i.e. jobs) in Boston and other American ports.

[central_va]

1924 was a long time ago but trade and manufacturing issues never really change over time. It is a fairly simple concept.

[central_va]

Bump.

[JPJones]

“1924 was a long time ago but trade and manufacturing issues never really change over time. It is a fairly simple concept.”

Right. And I look at that 1789 law and it sounds like they were having the same problems then, that we’re having now:

Imports, debt, loss of industry.

[central_va]

The issues concerning international trade have been both political and sometimes the casus bellum for over 5000 years since the first shipwrights made vessels large enough to carry cargo.

[Smokin' Joe]

We didn’t have an EPA then. The idea to clear out all those ‘swarms of officers to harass our people, and eat out their substance’ was still fresh.

[central_va]

So the nation should commit economic suicide because we have the EPA, the agency started by a Republican President and who played pussy foot with the ChiComs?

[Smokin' Joe]

Hell NO! Get rid of the damned EPA.

[NFHale]

".. the well being of the consumers can be safeguarded that there can be assured to American, agriculture, to American labor and to American manufacturers, a return to perpetrate American standards of life. ..."

Gee... what do is the common factor in that simple paragraph...?? Can't put my finger on it...

I'm all for it. Bring it back.

[central_va]

Hell NO! Get rid of the damned EPA.

In the mean time we need to stop the bleeding of manufacturing with tariffs NOW!

[Tupelo]

I betcha Calvin Coolidge was a better president than any that followed him, including the sainted Ronald Reagan. I betcha.
I betcha Calvin Coolidge will still be a better president than any that followed him in 2020 or 2024. Even if Donald Trump is elected. I betcha.

PS: I do not gamble. The words “I Betcha” is merely my remembrance of Marian Jordan.

[JPJones]

“We didn’t have an EPA then.”

True. For tariffs to work, we’d need to gut the fedgov to allow local industry to replace imports.

[central_va]

".. the well being of the consumers can be safeguarded that there can be assured to American, agriculture, to American labor and to American manufacturers, a return to perpetrate American standards of life. ..."

Racist hate speech. /sarc

[DoodleDawg]

OK so we understand that. You want high tariffs to jack up prices and bring manufacturing back to the U.S. But what are you going to do to find domestic customers for the $2.4 trillion in goods we used to export?

[nathanbedford]

As a benighted "establishment boot lick", I would like to observe that tariff policy must be judged in its context.

If in the beginning of the nation there was no federal income tax and the government's main source of revenue was customs duties, the imposition of tariffs was an entirely different matter than merely subsidizing some sectors or sacrificing other sectors or sections of the country to benefit others.

If in the beginning of the nation our former colonies were trying to make their way in a mercantilist world dominated by Great Britain and the British Navy, tariffs were a potent weapon short of war-in fact, tariffs could and did lead to war. Context is everything.

If in 1933 Smoot-Hawley retarded recovery from the Great Depression, it utterly failed in its purpose. If it started a tariff war around the world, it backfired.

In the absence of data, or more accurately in the absence of an inclination on the part of Trump supporters to examine any data instead of relying on the pronunciamentos of their hero, we are flying blind, or we are arguing blind, on this issue. We do not know for example the degree to which our tariff policy (our trade policy) harmed American manufacturing as opposed to our tax policy, our environmental policy, our regulatory behemoth decimated the rust belt. Nor do we know the degree to which technology has done this not just in manufacturing but in other sectors of the American economy.

We are accepting the word of a man who is singularly ignorant of these matters, worse, he has demonstrated an unwillingness to be educated about these matters and he reverts to a mantra that tells us he knows about trade and tariffs because he buys toilet from Mexicans and televisions from Koreans. He is an expert on China because a Chinese bank rents space in one of his buildings. He tells us that our problems arise from the fact that our negotiators are "stupid" but that does not make him smart. Smart starts with the knowledge that trade policy inevitably sacrifices some sectors over other sectors and that is what has happened to America as a result of the uni-party with their toadying to the big donors.

The remedy is not to install an ignoramus in charge of our trade policy, the remedy is to make it transparent and democratize it. Nor is the remedy to ignore the other, perhaps far more potent, factors which are hollowing out the American economy. Equally, it does not do to ignore the existential threat of looming national debt which, of course, Donald Trump will not honestly deal with. He tells us that he will handle the deficits by eliminating waste fraud and abuse. In the next breath he calls Ted Cruz a liar. Against all odds, he has avoided being struck by lightning.

[central_va]

But what are you going to do to find domestic customers for the $2.4 trillion in goods we used to export?

They will continue to export because we already face onerous tariffs now. They can't retaliate because they are doing that now.

[DoodleDawg]

They will continue to export because we already face onerous tariffs now. They can't retaliate because they are doing that now.

You don't think that foreign countries couldn't retaliate? Really?

[Smokin' Joe]

Why are we bleeding in the first place? Foreign slave labor? They do better work? (not).

Why we are bleeding is the series of moving target environmental regulations the EPA has put out. They really couldn't care less about the environment--for the most part that is pretty good. The real purpose is to obstruct American industry. How has Obama gone after the Coal industry? By a series of stack emissions regulations for power plants which are progressively tighter, requiring expensive downtime and re-fits, and the next set comes out, tightening standards another notch often before the refit is done. No power plants, coal demand plummets.

That is one of many industries.

Another job killer is Obamacare.

There are more, but the EPA gets the credit for doing more damage to the American manufacturing economy than any other factor. Tariffs won't close the wound if the EPA keeps cutting.