Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Willie Green
"There were no "retaliatory" tariffs or "trade wars" as a result of Smoot Hawley."

Really? Maybe you ought to peddle your beliefs to this guy: *********************************************************** "The business reality of Smoot-Hawley was far worse. 1,028 economists had earlier petitioned President Hoover to veto the bill, but with enactment, tariffs hit all-time levels on some 70 agricultural products and 900 manufactured items. The economists had warned that S-H would raise prices to consumers, damage export trade, hurt farmers, promote inefficiency and promote foreign reprisals. As to the issue of increased prices, you saw in a piece I did two weeks ago that consumer prices actually collapsed in the years 1930-32, a point that we will come back to. As for foreign reprisals, nations were outraged. Historian Richard Hofstadter called the tariff act, "a virtual declaration of economic war on the rest of the world." Within two years, 25 countries had retaliated and U.S. foreign trade took a huge hit. America had exported $5.24 billion in goods in 1929 and by 1932, the total was just $1.6 billion. http://www.buyandhold.com/bh/en/education/history/2002/smoot_hawley.html *********************************************************** BTW, I am not against lowering taxes on corporations. In fact I believe they ought to be removed entirely. You are right in saying the market place will take care of the pricing. Corporations effectively pay no tax anyway since it is all figured into the cost of bringing their product to market. I also do not believe corporations are corrupt in trying to get their elected officials to enact legislation favorable to their company. It is the duty of a company to make money for it's stock holders. It is incumbent upon the politicians to exercise restraint while accepting donations by letting the donor know that the acceptance of the donation in no way indicates a promise to perform on the part of the politician..

42 posted on 10/13/2005 1:48:50 PM PDT by Eagles Talon IV
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies ]


To: Eagles Talon IV
Really?

Really.

Many nations of that time embraced the idea that retaliation would be counterproductive. They feared antagonizing Congress or a grass roots brushfire of nationalistic patriotism among U.S. citizens that might lead to discrimination of their imported goods. Historical records show that the Smoot-Hawley tariff did little to encourage foreign countries to retaliate with high tariffs of their own. In May 1931, the State Department report found that "by far the largest number of countries do not discriminate against the commerce of the United States in any way." Data from the U.S. Commerce Department show that the reason for the severe drop in exports in almost every American export industry was because of economic problems related to the depression, not foreign retaliation for higher U.S. tariffs. Some U.S. exports, however, did see significant gains in foreign market share. Exports of apples, pears and grapefruits increased. Exports of prunes went up 31 percent, and exports of dried apricots soared higher by 72 percent. Exports of raw materials such as cotton and rayon held steady. Exports of American films increased 49 percent, and exports of false teeth rose 24 percent.
Myths of the Smoot-Hawley Tariff
43 posted on 10/13/2005 2:01:41 PM PDT by Willie Green (Go Pat Go!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson