Replies

Please see my post above on the sources. Begin with Taussig, who merely supplies most of the numbers, but then look at Doug Irwin's new book and Mario Crucini's articles. The best study on the antebellum tariff is Doublas Irwin and Peter Temin, "The Antebellum Tariff on Cotton Textiles Revisited," Journal of Economic History, 61, Sept. 2001, 777-805; and Temin, "Product Quality and Vertical INtegration in the EArly Cotton Textile Industry," (same source), 48, (1988), 891-907. A contrary viewpoint is expressed in C. Knick Harley, "International Competitiveness of the Antebellum American Cotton Textile Industry," (same journal), 52 (1992), 559-584, but then see the comments by Harley following the Irwin/Temin article. The main problem is lack of data prior to 1830, due to the poor collection of reports, but Irwin and Temin conclude that "the u.S. cotton-tetile industry was largely independent of the tariff by the early 1830s." Even after the tariff was drastically lowered---AND IMPORTS SUBSTANTIALLY INCREASED---there was no decline in domestic output, because we made "different stuff" than the British did. Harley tries to explain the differences by claiming the reasearchers were using "different sources" than he was---unpersuasive. (BTW, Temin, if I'm not mistaken, used to be a "pro-tariff" guy). I see no data that shows harm to the US economy from these tariffs. I said the Historical record and all you include are conclusions that agree with you. On Vandy, see Burt Folsom's very readable book, "Myth of the Robber Barons." It's quite well researched. And no, Vandy's triumph was no insignificant. It was quite impressive, as was his victory over SUBSIDIZED businesses every time he contronted them. And this relates to the tariff question how?

As for the late 19th century, Irwin's paper "Explaining America's Surge in Manufactured Exports, 1880-1913" (Review of Economics and Statistics, May 2003, 364-376) shows that natural resource changes, particularly the discovery of the Mesabi iron ore range, accounted for the productivity improvements and price declines, not other factors (especially not tariffs). "However these new technologies were all developed during an age when the benefits of capital investment in the USA were clear because of the protective tariffs." Irrelevent. Has nothing to do with the tariff. They were enacted because it was profitable to do so.

So then we may expect sbetter economic development ion nations taht had natural resources preesent but undeveloped but did not have protective tariffs. That would indicate that the tariff was harmful and no tariff's in place were beneficial but you do not cite this case. You are somehow limited to conclusions and seem to have an aversionb for facts and referecning the hostorical record.

Your comment on Bessemer is interesting. Carnegie did not benefit greatly from the light steel tariff, yet he instantly replaced his furnaces with Bessemer the minute he could, and then outproduced the British, even accounting for the tariff.

Agreed on Andrew Carnegie outproducing the British. I was merely focusing on your discussion of steel as a primary metal of the 1848 period. Clearly steel was made but the arge scale industrial production of steel versus iron did nbot really start until after Bessemer invented the converter which hapened in which happened after 1848.

This cirucular argument that the non-protected areas surged BECAUSE they were not protected is amazing. Indeed, no further comment IS necessary, and I'll leave it to readers to figure out which of the two of us is more logical. There is nothing circular about arguing that protection in one area may encourage investment in another area becuase of confidence that protection may be provided if necessary. Further, when new technology is invented and patents are in place it is clear that such technology provides a clear market advantage.

I'm not going to go through two pages worth of discussions, so keep it to one or two questions---it starts to get too much like teaching. :)When oh when will you stop listing people's conclusions and start actually giving data? Now clearly there is scholarship that has dsrawn opposite conclusions to theis present day scholarship. That other scholarship includes refernces to the actual historical record. I shall leave it to the reader who has presented conclusions. As to facts in 1789 the first prortective tariff was enacted. Protective tariffs were in place from 1789 on. The USA grew massively during that time. I further note that you even pointed out that the USA was competeing with slave wages at that time and that the wages in the uSA went from below those in England to above those in England during a periods when protective tariffs were in place. i asked for clear and convinging evidence and you cite a bunch of people's conclusions. I ask for you to pick the time period where the tariff's in place harmed the USA and the best you can come up with is well they did not help some industries that were not subject to protection. You have I will grant also cited some help to the textile industry of the mid 19th century but the purpose of this discussion was you were supposed to present facts from teh Historical record contradicting premise that tariffs were beneficial to the USA. Specifics are in order since it the ggrowth I mentioned and you mentioned all occurred during periods with protective tariffs. Theory does not suffice nor does your so called logic specific mathematics would spoecific facts with libnks to harm would also be quite sufficient to get my admission that you are correct that tariffs on imports are harmful to the USA.