Trump says trade wars are easy to win; history says no



Trump has said trade wars are “good and easy to win.” History begs to differ. The Smoot-Hawley Act and ensuing trade wars were not good for the country and not good for President Hoover. 

“The 1930 Tariff Act started with the narrow aim of helping distressed farmers but then mushroomed into a wholesale rewriting of the US tariff code, provoking anger and outrage from trade partners around the world.

“America’s major trade partners responded to those aggressive tariffs with their own targeted tariffs, quotas, and boycotts on American goods. 

“▪ Trade partners like Italy, Switzerland, Uruguay, and Argentina called for patriotic boycotts on key exports, such as American cars, sewing machines, and motion pictures.

“▪ European countries’ reprisals targeted highly visible US-branded goods (for example, France changed its tariffs on autos from value- to weight-based, effectively closing off its market to medium-priced — but far heavier — American-made cars.)

“▪ Canada and Mexico retaliated by imposing duties on American farm and livestock products, including wheat, oats, potatoes, and fresh meat. Ironically, trade legislation aimed at helping farmers ended up shrinking their export markets. 

“That retaliation hurt the ability of the United States to export to countries it needed to buy its goods. My research with fellow economists Kirsten Wandschneider and Kevin O’Rourke shows that US exports to retaliators fell by roughly 30 percent. America’s top exports took the biggest hit, signaling that the strategic retaliation by US trade partners proved effective.”

The only “winners” in a trade war are autocrats whose actions immiserate citizens and who can convince those citizens that their former trade partners are enemies and only Dear Leader—no a wider community of allies—can save them from the problems he created.

https://www.bostonglobe.com/2025/03/31/opinion/trump-tariff-trade-wars-smoot-hawley/ 

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Two sides

Image
  Yes, there are two sides to every question. In most cases, there is a correct side and a wrong side. In the case of Kamala Harris, the correct side is that she was born a US citizen. The wrong side is that her parents had to be citizens or permanent residents for her to be a citizen. President Trump pretended to be unsure about this, just as he pretended for five years that Barack Obama is not a citizen. In the case of the Harris noncitizen claim, it is backed by the racist C laremont Institute: "The Claremont Institute masquerades as an intellectual salon of the right, but it is really just a racist fever swamp with deep connections to the conspiratorial alt-right. It even granted a fellowship to Jack Posobiec, who helped promote the notorious Pizzagate conspiracy theory. Claremont’s resident bigots offer deranged fantasies of violently expelling Americans from their home country because of their ethnic backgrounds. Their work deserves the intellectual weight given to that of D...
Read more

Who chooses?

Over at jabberwocking.com , Kevin Drum blames pro-choice writers for failing to make the case for reproductive choice. Well, from everything I've read, a clear majority of Americans believe that Roe should still stand. Seems like the case has been made, and if we lived in a truly representative democracy, a limited national right to abortion would be preserved. But beyond that reality, I think Drum has it exactly backwards. Why does the burden of proof fall on those advocating for personal autonomy? Seems to me the null hypothesis is that women should be allowed to make decisions about their own health, and that the justification for nanny state intrusion into such decisions rests with the minority who assert state coercion. Democrats need to hammer on the right-wing GOP to explain why the government takes temporary custody of pregnant Americans. https://jabberwocking.com/liberals-really-suck-at-defending-abortion/
Read more

Black Earth

 Just finished reading “Black Earth: The Holocaust as history and warning” by Timothy Snyder. It is a detailed account of the Holocaust, as well as an effort to abstract lessons from this history for our time. Like his book “Bloodlands,” Snyder’s “Black Earth” makes for painful reading. As the grandson of a Ukrainian Jew and the son of a Jew, I would have been targeted in the Holocaust had I been in the wrong place. I had read several histories of Europe in World War II that included the Holocaust. I knew the basic story of the Holocaust and Hitler’s anti-Semitic vision. I learned a great deal by reading this book. I won’t belabor the ghoulish atrocities committed by the Nazis and their collaborators. To summarize them here would be to trivialize the enormity of the crimes and invite pointless debate about who did what and who suffered more. You’ll have to read the book to understand Snyder’s historical insights. However, I learned many things that I did not know by reading thi...
Read more