Posted on 02/04/2009 2:40:10 PM PST by UCFRoadWarrior
Closing your eyes, plugging your ears, singing "LA LA LA I CAN'T HEAR YOU" does not constitute no "evidence to the contrary."
So are we saying that unless GDP drops forever in perpetually increasing rates of decline, it's not that bad? Is GDP contraction supposed to plummet forever, into negative territory, to the point where we're actively destroying wealth, to the point where the Rockefeller family is trading chickens for raw wheat?
Did Hawley-Smoot cause the Great Depression? No, it was well underway. Did it help continue the GD? Yes, unemployment continued to go up, trade went down. That’s not a positive.
From the Dep’t of State:
Scholars disagree over the extent of protection actually afforded by the Smoot-Hawley tariff; they also differ over the issue of whether the tariff provoked a wave of foreign retaliation that plunged the world deeper into the Great Depression. What is certain, however, is that Smoot-Hawley did nothing to foster cooperation among nations in either the economic or political realm during a perilous era in international relations. It quickly became a symbol of the “beggar-thy-neighbor” policies of the 1930s. Such policies, which were adopted by many countries during this time, contributed to a drastic contraction of international trade. For example, U.S. imports from Europe declined from a 1929 high of $1,334 million to just $390 million in 1932, while U.S. exports to Europe fell from $2,341 million in 1929 to $784 million in 1932. Overall, world trade declined by some 66% between 1929 and 1934.
You post only loss of trade....but do not provide any evidence that the economy did not grow during Smoot/Great Depression.
Instead of ridiculing my posts...provide some real evidence to support your argument.
Maybe you cant.
I notice that Economic Anti-Americans cannot handle the facts when presented. I am sure you have a positive spin on the current failed Free Trade system
The US Steel manufacturers were hurt by Bush’s tarrifs? Nonsense. They were the ones pushing it.
Contrary to one-worlders wet dreams, the US must produce adequate amounts of steel, titanium, high tech components, food, nuclear reactors, and many other products in order to survive in a very hostile world.
Why is it you protectionists conveniently forget that the very protectionism you defend was in large part responsible for the federal income tax we suffer under today?
Protectionist tariffs remained the bedrock of economic policy of the Republican Party for the next 20 years. Indeed, Republicans were so intent on passing the Payne-Aldrich tariff in 1909 that President William Howard Taft supported the 16th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution creating a federal income tax as the political price for Democratic support of the tariff. That has to have been one of the worst deals in history -- a lose-lose situation if ever there was one."
Nice! Thanks for posting.
If you have a “free trade” ping list, please put me on it.
Still doesnt explain the growth in the economy during the period from 1934 and beyond...
What makes up GDP, may I ask?
I do not have a Free Trade ping list yet....but should work on one...thanks
Also, the moon did not turn purple while Smoot was in effect. Coincidence. Like the economy being able to grow even under the constraints of trade.
What a waste of time. Good day, sir.
Tariffs are not taxes plain and simple. They are also an effective method for diplomacy, negotiating trade deals, and protecting industries that are vital to US survival. - pissant
Excellent point....and today it still used by “trading partners” of the United States....also China uses a form of tariff by floating their currency....and the EU uses a form of tariff by VAT rebates....which is why the Euros screamed over “Buy American”
I do wonder whose side the Free Traders are really on..
I know you well from around these parts, so I will give you the opportunity to re-read my post, with additional emphasis:
"So when Bush protected the Steel Industry with tariffs and U.S. industries that consumed steel were greatly harmed, that was good for us."
From a great Hoover Institution article on the Great Depression:
I think it's now generally agreed, or almost generally agreed, that the Fed action was the cause of the GD. And I don't think Smoot-Hawley is even mentioned in the article, though the manifold government spending programs are discussed a great deal. And the Fed shrunk the money supply by 30%.
The purpose was to protect the STEEL MANUFACTURERS from foreign dumping. Perhaps you need to understand what dumping strategies are, such as those employed by China.
It was not intended to benefit those who were buying the dumped foreign steel.
Components of GDP
Each of the variables C (Consumption), I (Investment), G (Government spending) and X − M (Net Exports) (where GDP = C + I + G + (X − M) as above)
C (Consumption) is private consumption in the economy. This includes most personal expenditures of households such as food, rent, medical expenses and so on but does not include new housing.
I (Investment) is defined as investments by business or households in capital. Examples of investment by a business include construction of a new mine, purchase of software, or purchase of machinery and equipment for a factory. Spending by households (not government) on new houses is also included in Investment. In contrast to its colloquial meaning, 'Investment' in GDP does not mean purchases of financial products. Buying financial products is classed as 'saving', as opposed to investment. The distinction is (in theory) clear: if money is converted into goods or services, it is investment; but, if you buy a bond or a share of stock, this transfer payment is excluded from the GDP sum. That is because the stocks and bonds affect the financial capital which in turn affects the production and sales which in turn affects the investments. So stocks and bonds indirectly affect the GDP. Although such purchases would be called investments in normal speech, from the total-economy point of view, this is simply swapping of deeds, and not part of real production or the GDP formula.
G (Government spending) is the sum of government expenditures on final goods and services. It includes salaries of public servants, purchase of weapons for the military, and any investment expenditure by a government. It does not include any transfer payments, such as social security or unemployment benefits.
X (Exports) is gross exports. GDP captures the amount a country produces, including goods and services produced for other nations' consumption, therefore exports are added.
M (Imports) is gross imports. Imports are subtracted since imported goods will be included in the terms G, I, or C, and must be deducted to avoid counting foreign supply as domestic.
Hmmm...Wasn't there a whole lot of *G* spending going on in the 1930s? Wouldn't that have something (a great deal) to do with GDP increasing? C, I, X and M were all going down, but G was going gangbusters.
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.