Replies

Because a good number of economists acknowledge that the Smoot-Hawley Act exacerbated the Depression. Not the ones you read, mind you. In fact, the whole notion that something is "almost impossible to isolate" in effect is surprising to hear from you. You've been parading-around for weeks asking your pro-free-trade opponents to demonstrate conclusively that tariffs hurt, instead of help, our economy. Why the double-standard?

A good number of economists take the stand the Smoot Hawley act mitigated the worst effects of the Great Depression in the USA. The evidence seems to be out as to which it was unless or until you can come up with something that isolates its effects from the effects of the Federal Reserve actions of the time. i have even seen some who have argued that teh immanent passage of the Smoot Hawley tariffs were teh cuase of the stock Market Crash of 1929. The time differential alone would make that ludicrous to most but the fact that there was no Smoot Hawley tariff until the separate House and senate versions of the tariff sct of 1930 went to conference committee and adopted all of the tariffs of both houses makes such speculation insane.

Would you care to back up your assertion with other than unsubstantiated opinion.

You've been parading-around for weeks asking your pro-free-trade opponents to demonstrate conclusively that tariffs hurt, instead of help, our economy. Why the double-standard?

Becuase it is possible to demonstate that tariffs help our economu and I have posted one example of teh above. The issue that something is almost impossible to isolate is not new to me. I am quite familiar with it but it is possible to statistically control for using multiple regression analysis which is why I am so particular about using the same methodologies for both sides of the cost benefit equation.

I demand the same rigor of the adbvocates of the unfair trad eenvirornment that they have demanded of its opponents. In short I learned from such as LS, that factual rigor is very important in an honest discussion of tariffs. I would think if i advocated a position that was unsupported by facts I would be questioning that position. If even thr experts that articulate the theory and who are supposedly academics of the first order can not provide the evidence supporting their theoretical construct when at least one piece of evidence refuting that theoretical construct exists then I would question what I espoused. i note the theory of circular orbits of the planets was discarded by Johannes Kepler on the basis of one observation by Tycho Brahee. This was a great moment in physical science. Would that economists were as enlighted as physicists.

By the way I ahve read numerous economists who assert that Smoot Hawley was a great harm to our economy but when I look at the details the details contradict them. Some have argued Smoot Hawley kicked off a round of retaliatory tariffs. The details do not bear that assertion out. I will even grant that Smoot hawley did great harm to many Central and South American economies but I have yet to see that assertion proven or even well defended. Yes, I have read Friedman among others.

I demand the rigor I do because this is a serious issue too serious to be left to fuzzy thinking and platitudes based upon misrepresentation of facts. I am appalled by the one liners of many so called libertarians who mouth the Cato institute line on this without examining the facts. I do not claim to have every fact and I appreciate new ones. as I said with the USITC study I am examining I have only some preliminary impressions and I have to devote more time to the piece. If it works as an example of a traiff that seems on net to harmful to the USA I will flag you on it. At least I can make this statement. The USITC study of the effect of the 2001 steel tariffs on Steel Consumers shows that the overall net cost/benefit may be either positive or negative so a reasonable conclusion is this tariff on net can neither be declared helpful or harmful based on this study at this time.

I for one do not find the idea a tariff could be harmful irrational. I honestly believe there must be some that are harmful on net. I just would like the evidence in hand for when tariffs again become in fashion.

In short I believe in rational policies rationally arrived at with ideaologies set aside in favor of empirical evidence. I also enjoy a lively discussion with those who have knowledge I do not have and from whom I can learn. Of course intellectual honesty is paramount in such a discussion. When I allege something that I have not seen the evidence for I will state my lack of documentation when I allege something where the documentation has been repeatedly produced on other threads then I will tell a personr to do their own research. In short I enjoy reasonable discussion without rancor. With many advocates of the current trade envorornment that is impossible because of their militancy and unwillingness to engage in reasonable discussion with evidence and referneces.

Instead they make assertions which are unsupported by facts. This is a typical tactic of liberals, unfair trade advocates and Marxiists.

Now you alleged a "double standard" I deny a double standard and specifically state that the double standard if employed by anyone is employed by those whop advocate the current trade regimine without providing any evidence. When one asks for evidence one is hard pressed to even get something line the study funded by the Steel Consumer's group and that is hardly evidence of anything except that one can create a document taht argues a point by dismissing every countervailing argument and engaging in rhetorical and marthematical hucksterism. The great significance of the diiffenece between the steel Consumer's study and the the USITC study is that the latter does not confirm the former. at least in the executive summary. That qualification of at least in the executive summary is important because the details of what is summarized are far more important than the summary and may not support the summary. I have not yet had chance to critically analyze teh details of teh this several hundred page document so when I am done I will let you know.