Talk:Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act
From Academic Kids
Isn't this generally known as the Smoot-Hawley Tariff? -- Zoe
- I've never heard of it referred to as such... am I just dumb? -- The T
- "Smoot-Hawley Tariff be renamed and moved to Smoot-Hawley tariff" Are you kidding me? Try the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act. - Jerryseinfeld 19:38, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
This page should make some reference to how high tariffs were before and after passage of the Act. - stancollins 11:55, 25 Jan 2005
| Contents |
Smoot-Hawley Tarrif Act - beneficial to an economy?
In no way is an increase in import tariffs beneficial to any economy. Classical, neo-Classical, Conservative, neo-Con, Liberal economists, all agree that the increased tariffs are a tax on consumers, decrease competition, increase prices, decrease demand, AND decrease domestic supply. Why should any domestic supplier increase output, or productivity, or quality, or decrease costs, or decrease price, if there is lessened competition? Sorry, there are two sets of persons benefitted by increased tariffs and decreased competition: oligolopolistic industry and politicians paid for by them. Richard Macklin
Tariffs and Economy
I agree that tariffs are generally bad for economy, however the phrase "always harmful" may be inaccurate.
In terms of global economy, I agree that tariff is never directly benefitial because it restricts movement of goods. That being said, let us consider following situation.
Tariffs on foreign trade was a great revenue maker for governments. Some nations can produce certain products cheaper and better then others. For example, in 1920 (Roaring Twenties), Britain dominated ship-building, and China dominated silk export. There are always demand for ships, and there are always demand for silks. If USA was to raise tariffs on silk and ships, but not so high that demand would lower dramatically; US government can generate large revenue without much harm to economy. More money for government means more work projects and more employment (Keynesian Economy). More employment means more demands.
Also, I believe the purpose of some tariffs were to protect domestic economy, not to promote international trade. Tariffs are often made to discourage foreign competition, which indirectly benefit global economy in some cases. In 1998 USA banned (after imposing heavy tax) the sales of asian garlics. Asian farmers had over-produced garlics, and was using USA as a dumping ground. Imported asian garlics were sold at about 1/4 price of domestic garlic, US farmers simply cannot compete with the low price. If the asian garlics hasnt been banned, US farmers would lose a lot of money. Keep in mind the Great Depression was caused by overproduction (low price, but no demand), and that agriculture was the first to suffer. And also keep in mind USA has one of the largest deficit in the world, any blow to agrilculture would likely collaspe US economy. If US economy collaspe, and cannot pay back its debt, rest of trading world will follow.
"Classical, neo-Classical, Conservative, neo-Con, Liberal economists, all agree that the increased tariffs are a tax on consumers" I believe what you referred to was their general theory on economy, which discourage taxes. However, there are exception, special cases you may have missed. You can ask economists whether abolishing all tax by tomorow would be a great idea, they would likely say no. I agree with the original article, and believe no change is necessary. -- Feb 14, 2005 - Maximilius
- I must disagree here. The phrase "There is still some historical debate as to whether the tariff was harmful or not" *may* be true, but we ought to be able to cite some kind of defense of the Tariff if we can actually say there is debate. The phrase "A revenue-generating tariff can be beneficial to an economy" is generally regarded as true, but this ignores two issues: 1) it can be generally regarded as beneficial to the *domestic* economy as distinct from the world economy at large (few economists would say the latter), and more importantly 2) It is not my understanding that Smoot-Hawley comes under the rubric of a 'revenue-raising tarriff' in the first place. It is rather my understanding that it was a *prohibitive* tarriff by design. Even fewer are the economists (essentially only the most hardcore fringe of Marxist-Leninists) who would defend prohibitive tariffs as beneficial. This was the point of my earlier question as to the level of the Tariff before and after the Act. --stancollins, 05 April 2005
Which way?
Is it the Smoot-Hawley act or the Hawley-Smoot act? It doesn't look very good when both version are in use on the same page. --TACD 02:29, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Well, according to The American Pageant by Thomas Bailey (a US history text), it's the Hawley-Smoot Tariff Act...I'm not going to change it until some sort of consensus is reached though. Basil Fawlty 01:13, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
Causes of GD
"Although the tariff act was passed after the Stock Market Crash of 1929, many economic historians consider it a factor in deepening the Great Depression."
This is suspect as it implies that it's a fait accompli that the crash caused the depression. Any small reading into the subject will tell you that this is defiantly not the case. ZephyrAnycon 02:05, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
