Posted on 02/28/2009 9:56:50 AM PST by dtom
previous 110th session of congress
DEPRESSION will soon follow.
Free Trade beats the alternative, every time.
On balance, the alternative to the trading relationships we now have would be: Free trade.
Free trade has brought us to this point-bankrupt...if a serious trade deficit exists...you can bet the country this deficit favors is screwing this country. Whatever trade policies a country has towards us...back at you...I call it mirror trade-can’t happen fast enough for me. By the way Smoot-Hawley did not prolong the depression (only 6% of GNP), but it saved us from enriching the Germans and the Japanese which might very well have caused us to lose WWII. Speaking of dangerous countries. China is becoming increasingly dangerous because our trade policies have enriched this country, and they spend it on weapons.
Smoot-Hawley and the subsequent destruction of the global economy made anything that FDR did look productive.
FDR was regarded as a good President (by the 1930s American electorate) only because Hoover was that frigging bad.
When Smoot-Hawley was passed in 1930, unemployment was only 7.6%. Unemployment skyrocketed to 25.2% by the end of Hoover’s term. Hitler would never have come to power if trade had been allowed with Germany after World War I. Economic despair leads to extremism.
Live leak.com has an article related to the Balancing Trade Act of 2007. I guess the live leak article han been unconfrimed, the moderator keeps pulling down the threads to this story? http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=0f8_1235673139
I don’t know about this particular act, but we have damned few true free trade relationships with other nations. We might have something close to free trade with western European nations and Canada, but all too often we have give other nations great access to our market while endlessly tolerating all sorts of barriers thrown up by our trading partners.
Anyone want to make the case that we have free trade with China, or Japan, or South Korea? And with most third world nations, the only thing being traded is US jobs and manufacturing facilities for cheap labor and low tariff access back to the US market.
“When Smoot-Hawley was passed in 1930, unemployment was only 7.6%. Unemployment skyrocketed to 25.2% by the end of Hoover’s term. Hitler would never have come to power if trade had been allowed with Germany after World War I. Economic despair leads to extremism.”
I wouldn’t say the 7.6% unemployment went all the way to 25.2% because of that law. We had much bigger factors going on. Historically speaking, that law was a drop-in-the-pan. By 1933, tariffs went up 6% (to 19.8%)...63% duty free. That’s nothing, if you compare it to the late 1830’s.
I think low equitable tariffs/barriers on both sides is the most desirable. But I definitely don’t believe in just giving a free opening to outsiders. Other countries have to open up their markets.
It does seem to be that way. I think we all want the same thing, but our perception of what needs to be done is different. Our trade policy with others needs to be equitable and low in barriers....
Dude, there are a lot of reasons why we're in the state we're in, but free trade is not one of them. You'd spend your time a lot more wisely trying to convince your government overlords to reduce corporate tax rates and abolish capital gains taxes than to encourage them to screw trade up for us.
Dude, there is no such thing as free trade. Most other countries protect their industries through the VAT tax or other regulatory barriers. If you do not believe this, you are on par with the global warming people. Even though the evidence, you still believe.
But our markets have been much more open to others than their markets have been to us for fifty or more years. Same old, same old, and the same old scare tactics about protectionism, the bogus Smoot-Hawley nonsense, and in the meantime, our annual trade deficit has gone from tens of billions to around $700 billion, and will easily reach a trillion if as is likely under Obama) crude oil prices climb again.
Of course, the trade deficit problem was remedied by revising reality from: trade deficits are a serious problem, to, trade deficits are nothing to worry about.
We didn’t raise tariffs in the late 1830s; we did in the 1840s after Martin Van Buren was defeated by William Henry Harrison and John Tyler. And what we did caused a Civil War. Had Andrew Jackson or Martin Van Buren raised tariffs after the Panic of 1837, you can guarantee that the Civil War would have occurred sooner, and the outcome would not have been as favorable.
By the way, you’ll find I’m not disagreeing with you all that much.
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.