Myths of the Smoot-Hawley Tariff

howtobuyamerican.com ^ | Roger Simmermaker

[CobaltBlue]

I'm glad to see you admit that you could care less about the United States and its people

Thank God that, for the most part, the people of the United States hate whiners. Otherwise, we'd still be subsidizing buggy whip factories.

[quadrant]

Your analysis may be correct, but few will believe you.

[sarcasm]

The old buggy whip argument - have you ever had an original idea?

[CobaltBlue]

Poor "victim" of the "evils" of capitalism.

[sarcasm]

Not a hater of capitalism - just disgusted with those who despise the American people.

[Conservative til I die]

I don't think at an average of 4-5% (less than sales tax in most places), they are propping up any industries. Many are 0% (electronics) and some are more like the steel tariffs. Yet the unilateral free traders would like us to believe that they are going to accomplish something dropping them all to zero that they have not yet accomplished dropping them from 10 times the current level. Pat Buchanan was talking about a 15% across the board tariff and the way they talk about him leaves absolutely no room for guys like Lincoln and Washington who funded government at levels way, way above that. That's totally irrational in my opinion. I like balance: no inflation, no deflation, no budget surpluses, no budget deficits, no trade surpluses, no trade deficits. Anything that strays from this is government trickery at the cost of the general public.

I would agree with you for the most part, but in Washington and Lincoln's time, there was no federal income tax and government was much much smaller.

Unfortuntately, today, payroll deductions remove around 25-35% of the middle-class person's check. Add in sales taxes, property taxes, gasoline taxes, sin taxes, and a mess of other hidden taxes, and you're talking about one serious tax burden to fund the leviathan government.

Adding high tarriffs only compounds the problem, with the additional outcome of hurting our labor market, since in the digital age, trade is much more extensive globally. Tarriffs can also upset the balance between trading nations, pissing off our partners enough that they threaten retaliatory tarriffs on their end.

[Toddsterpatriot]

Somehow you went from protectionism to GNP. What you really want to look at is tariffs and growth rate.

Well, when some talk about our low tariffs ruining our country/economy, what else would I talk about but GDP?

As far as growth rates, what nation over the last 5,10,20 years has matched our growth rate?

IIRC, Taiwan had one of the lowest tariffs, (could even be zero) and has had tremendous growth over the last few decades with no natural resources.

No one is arguing that we should protect the US from foreign competition, just from foreign predators.

What's your definition of a predator?

[sixmil]

Adding high tarriffs only compounds the problem, with the additional outcome of hurting our labor market, since in the digital age, trade is much more extensive globally. Tarriffs can also upset the balance between trading nations, pissing off our partners enough that they threaten retaliatory tarriffs on their end.

I don't think anyone on my side of the issue is saying that we should add tariff revenues to the already excessive amount of money the gov't siphons off of the economy. I would say that we would like to replace revenues from direct taxes like the income tax with revenues from tariffs.

With respect to the labor market, I don't see anyone hiring Americans except the Japanese building cars here, which is a result of tax policy. On the other hand, America is trying to employ the entire world by exporting jobs and importing workers.

Yes, tariffs will upset the current balance of trade, which is actually a total IMbalance of trade that is not in our direction. Sure, there will be threats, just like there is any time the gravy train is threatened. But, our trading partners have far more to lose than we do.

[Conservative til I die]

I think we agree generally on tariffs.

[Pelham]

bump

[Willie Green]

Note: the source URL for this article has been changed:

It is now http://www.howtobuyamerican.com/simmermaker/ba-0012-smoothawley.shtml

Please bookmark for reference.

[_Jim]

The old buggy whip argument - have you ever had an original idea?

Perhaps Cobalt should have used something more elementary and understandable, like the 'bear skins and stone knives' ?