'Adam Smith was one of the first to question the wisdom of this arrangement. His Wealth of Nations was published in 1776, the same year that Britain's American colonies declared independence in response to high taxes and restrictive trade arrangements'.
CLINTON/BUSH/OBAMA NOW TRUMP handed America to OLD WORLD MERCHANTS GLOBAL 1% so they could be the 'colonizers-----and 99% WE THE PEOPLE those colonized. The goal of taxes and tariffs under these conditions is to capture natural resources for global 1% as we discussed but to make sure colonies only purchase from global banking 1% multi-national corporations. This is happening today as consolidation and monopoly has made all our US corporations multi-national-----but it has not happened regarding our US tax code and tariffs.
'This system, known as mercantilism, relied heavily on tariffs and even outright bans on trade. The colonizing country, which saw itself as competing with other colonizers, would import raw materials from its colonies; these were generally barred from selling raw materials elsewhere. The colonizing country would convert these materials into manufactured wares, which it would sell back to the colonies. High tariffs and other barriers were put in place to make sure that colonies only purchased manufactured goods from their colonizers'.
TRUMP is changing the TARIFF laws in ways that will create great increase in cost for US citizens buying any consumer product. These act as taxes once aimed at competing global nations and their products-----now aimed at 99% WE THE PEOPLE.
National media and global banking 1% pols and players create TALKING POINTS around TAXES that are meaningless while rarely talking about the gorilla-in-the-room----TARIFFS.
What is a 'Tariff'
A tariff is a tax imposed on imported goods and services.
BREAKING DOWN 'Tariff'
Tariffs are used to restrict imports by increasing the price of goods and services purchased from overseas and making them less attractive to consumers. A specific tariff is levied as a fixed fee based on the type of item, for example, $1,000 on any car. An ad-valorem tariff is levied based on the item's value, for example, 10% of the car's value.
Governments may impose tariffs to raise revenue or to protect domestic industries – particularly nascent ones – from foreign competition. By making foreign-produced goods more expensive, tariffs can make domestic-produced ones more attractive. By protecting these industries, governments can also protect jobs. Tariffs can also be used as an extension of foreign policy: imposing tariffs on a trading partner's main exports is a way to exert economic leverage.
Tariffs can have unintended side-effects, however. They can make domestic industries less efficient by reducing competition. They can hurt domestic consumers, since a lack of competition tends to push up prices. They can generate tensions by favoring certain industries over others, as well as certain regions over others: tariffs designed to benefit manufacturers in cities may hurt consumers in rural areas, who do not benefit from the policy and are likely to pay more for manufactured goods. Finally, an attempt to pressure a rival country using tariffs can devolve into an unproductive cycle of retaliation, known as a trade war.
History of Tariffs
In the pre-modern Europe, a nation's wealth was believed to consist of fixed, tangible assets such as gold, silver, land and other physical resources (but especially gold). Trade was seen as a zero-sum game that resulted either in a clear net loss of wealth or a clear net gain. If a country imported more than it exported, its gold would flow abroad, draining its wealth. Cross-border trade was therefore looked at with suspicion, and countries much preferred to acquire colonies they could set up exclusive trading relationships with, rather than trading among themselves.
This system, known as mercantilism, relied heavily on tariffs and even outright bans on trade. The colonizing country, which saw itself as competing with other colonizers, would import raw materials from its colonies; these were generally barred from selling raw materials elsewhere. The colonizing country would convert these materials into manufactured wares, which it would sell back to the colonies. High tariffs and other barriers were put in place to make sure that colonies only purchased manufactured goods from their colonizers.
Adam Smith was one of the first to question the wisdom of this arrangement. His Wealth of Nations was published in 1776, the same year that Britain's American colonies declared independence in response to high taxes and restrictive trade arrangements. Later writers such as David Ricardo further developed Smith's ideas, leading to the theory of comparative advantage: if one country is better at producing one product, while another country is better at producing another, each should devote its resources to the activity at which it excels. They should trade with one another, rather than erecting barriers that force them to divert some resources towards activities they do not perform well. Tariffs, according to this theory, are a drag on economic growth, even if they can be deployed to benefit certain narrow sectors under certain circumstances.
These two approaches – free trade based on the idea of comparative advantage, on the one hand, and restricted trade based on the idea of a zero-sum game, on the other – have experienced their ebbs and flows. Relatively free trade enjoyed a heyday in the late 19th century and early 20th, when the idea took hold that international commerce had made large-scale wars between states so expensive and counterproductive that they were obsolete. World War I proved that idea wrong, and nationalist approaches to trade (including high tariffs) dominated until the end of World War II.
At that point free trade enjoyed a 50-year resurgence, culminating in the creation in 1995 of the World Trade Organization, which acts as an international forum for settling disputes and laying down ground rules. Free trade agreements such as NAFTA and the European Union also proliferated. Skepticism of this model – sometimes labeled "neoliberalism" by critics, who tie it to 19th-century liberal arguments in favor of free trade – grew, however, and Britain voted to leave the European Union in 2016, while Donald Trump won the U.S. presidential election in the same year on a platform that called for steep tariffs on Chinese and Mexican imports.
Critics of multilateral trade deals to eliminate tariffs – who come from both ends of the political spectrum – argue that these deals erode national sovereignty and encourage a race to the bottom in terms of wages, worker protections, quality and standards. Their defenders argue that tariffs lead to trade wars, hurt consumers, hamper innovation and encourage xenophobia.
During WOODROW WILSON era through FDR lots of trade policy were created because EMPIRE-BUILDING ROBBER BARONS enriched from the ROARING 20s were ready to expand overseas. As we said----oil barons, railroad barons, and the goal of FDR was to become GLOBAL BIG AG -----saw tariffs and taxes tied to these industries. Textiles were agriculture----that cotton et al tied to our garment industries.
What FDR era created as well was the IMPORT EXPORT BANK----this moved some of that 90% corporate tax to subsidizing these ROBBER BARON expansions overseas. Our 99% of US citizens were angered by WOODROW WILSON/FDR because these tariffs placed our American manufacturers at a disadvantage. Remember, OLD WORLD GLOBAL 1% colonizers used these tariffs to keep American manufacturing down----so 1900s with installing a US FED started to bring these TARIFFS against our American manufacturers.
TRUMP IS SIMPLY FINISHING WHAT HAS BEEN MOVING FORWARD----CLINTON/BUSH/OBAMA'S TRADE DEALS STARTED THIS ATTACK.
The IMPORT EXPORT BANK was simply a subsidizing of these overseas expansions by US corporations sold at the time as today open for all Americans wanting to be MERCANTILE GLOBAL MARKETEERS.
The Export-Import Bank is dead and should stay that way
By David Williams — 08/17/15 01:00 PM EDT
Some members of the U.S. Senate are attempting to resurrect the United States Export-Import (Ex-Im) Bank, whose charter expired on June 30. A few have even gone as far as to threaten a government shutdown over the issue when Congress returns in the fall. Those efforts would be severely misguided and a waste of time and taxpayer money, as the bank has proven to be immune from Congressional reform and has strayed far from its original charter.
The Ex-Im bank provides taxpayer-backed funding to overseas businesses and foreign governments to buy U.S. products. Ex-Im was originally intended to specifically benefit American small businesses that might not otherwise receive private loans in order to assist their exporting ability abroad. A noble cause indeed, and in its infancy, the bank did just that, assisting with U.S. exporting efforts in the 1930 to the Soviet Union and Cuba. In recent decades, however, it has ventured far outside of its stated mission, instead distorting the free market, picking the politically connected corporations it chooses to do business with, and leaving many U.S. businesses at a comparative disadvantage.
The three largest beneficiaries of Ex-Im financing are Boeing, General Electric and Caterpillar, not small businesses by any definition of the word. In fact, those three are multinational conglomerates that can most certainly find private financing elsewhere. That goes directly against the bank’s own charter, which states that the bank should provide export financing only for “export transactions that are unlikely to proceed without Ex-Im support.” In 2012, Boeing alone received 83 percent of all loan guarantees, and in 2013, just five corporations received 93 percent of all Ex-Im loan guarantees.
Private lenders, like JP Morgan Chase, and Citibank, benefit as well. When Ex-Im finances transactions, a private lending institution holds the debt for the transaction and is able to charge an interest rate to the borrower. Because the transaction is backed by the full faith and credit of the United States, they hold this debt practically risk-free. These giant lending institutions churn a profit, without housing any of the risk.
The bank is unsustainable, and, according to the Congressional Budget Office, is set to cost taxpayers $2 billion over the next ten years. This figure doesn’t even take into account the opportunity cost of diverting these taxpayer dollars, money which could be utilized elsewhere in the economy. Tax dollars should go toward fixing roads and infrastructure, funding troops and national security, not toward funding private transactions for America’s largest Fortune 100 corporations.
Additionally, the bank is unnecessary. Nearly 99 percent of all U.S. exports are financed without the bank’s help. In fact, the bank penalizes those other 99 percent of U.S. exports by distorting the market and putting them in an anti-competitive position, forcing them to compete with companies who do receive federal loan subsidies at more favorable rates.
The bank’s charter has been reauthorized with reforms on several occasions over the past ten years, but the status quo has remained the same, if not gotten worse. Let us not repeat the mistakes of the past – with taxpayer dollars on the line.
Congressional reauthorization in 2012 included conditions that Ex-Im submit a business plan to Congress, respond to a review by the Government Accountability Office on risk management practices, and become more transparent and accountable by categorizing each loan in one of three categories. The bank has failed to comply on all accounts.
Fraud and corruption run rampant. There are more than 30 ongoing cases of fraud involving bank employees, and this year, Ex-Im loan officer Johnny Gutierrez pleaded guilty to accepting bribes on 19 different occasions. A former U.S. Congressman, Rep. William Jefferson (D-La.), was convicted and given a 13-year prison sentence for accepting bribes in 2009 in an Ex-Im related deal, steering federal contracts to favored companies. And Ex-Im has neglected to show transparency in its selection process or business dealings.
The Ex-Im bank is immune to reform, and it has lived its last life. America doesn’t need the Export-Import bank, and the Senate should certainly not resurrect it from the dead.
'A noble cause indeed, and in its infancy, the bank did just that, assisting with U.S. exporting efforts in the 1930'
So, why are both global banking 1% parties claiming its time to END IMPORT EXPORT? Well, we are again a COLONY.
Below we see CLINTON ERA 1990s starting this policy discussion over ending IMPORT EXPORT BANK----this discussion was sold as HOLDING POWER ACCOUNTABLE------but the goals in 1997 Clinton-era of shipping all US corporations overseas was taking the US to a COLONIAL STATUS------COLONIES of course do not have citizens involved in global trading.
This article from CATO ----THAT LIBERTARIAN THINK TANK
Why We Don’t Need the Export-Import Bank
By Ian Vásquez
August 25, 1997
This fall, Congress will decide whether to reauthorize the charter of one of the federal government’s most inexcusable boondoggles: the Export-Import Bank. The bank gives handouts to U.S. exporters: loan guarantees, insurance and direct loans. Its official rationale is to aid exporters when “market failure” makes those services unavailable or when foreign governments’ export subsidies benefit firms that compete against U.S. exporters.
While the bank does help a few businesses — only about 2 percent of all exports of U.S. goods and services are backed by Ex-Im Bank — it does so only by draining resources from the rest of the economy.
As one Congressional Research Service study noted, “Most economists doubt … that a nation can improve its welfare over the long run by subsidizing exports. Internal economic policies ultimately determine the overall level of a nation’s exports… . By providing financing or insurance for exporters, Ex-Im Bank’s activities draw from the financial resources within the economy that would be available for other uses. Such opportunity costs, while impossible to estimate, potentially could be significant.”
Put another way, the Export-Import Bank is corporate welfare. It benefits a small number of private businesses at the expense of other businesses and taxpaying citizens.
One of Ex-Im Bank’s aims is to provide services where the private market does not because of perceptions of excessive political or commercial risk. Yet 44 percent of the bank’s guarantees in fiscal year 1996 went to Argentina, Brazil, China, Indonesia, Korea, Mexico, Singapore and Thailand — growing economies that have no problem obtaining investment from the private markets.
Some countries or projects do have difficulty attracting foreign investment, but there are usually good reasons for that. The ability to attract capital is determined by the types of policies and institutions a country embraces. Nations that have done the most to reform have succeeded in voluntarily attracting private investors who want a good rate of return, while those that have been unwilling to change have failed to attract them.
That is not an example of market failure; instead, it is an example of the market’s providing important signals of how worthwhile foreign investments are. Where private money is not invested, unfortunately, Ex-Im Bank’s subsidized lending and guarantees reward bad economic policies because they relieve host governments of the need to create an investment environment that genuinely attracts foreign capital.
Worse, the U.S. agency sometimes supports governmental or quasi-governmental entities abroad. David Kramer of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, for instance, has criticized Ex-Im Bank’s support of Gazprom, the Russian gas monopoly, and Ukragroprombirzha, a state-run agricultural enterprise in Ukraine. Such endeavors do little more than undercut the U.S. policy of encouraging economic liberalization abroad.
The bank’s proponents still reason that the agency is needed because foreign governments are subsidizing firms that compete with U.S. companies. Free trade, it is said, is the correct policy for an ideal world, but since “unfair competition” exists, so must the Export-Import Bank. That argument still ignores the high costs of export subsidies. It is unfortunate that foreign governments subsidize their exports, but even so, Ex-Im Bank distorts the U.S. economy by pulling resources out of it to benefit favored corporations.
As a matter of U.S. policy, Congress’s decision about the future of the Export-Import Bank should, of course, be consistent with the goal of promoting a prosperous domestic economy. We would do well to take a lesson from the Europeans, who have long given their exports more official support than does the United States and impeded their own economies in the process. The Western European countries suffer from persistent unemployment (now averaging more than twice the U.S. rate), low growth, and a variety of other problems related to their large welfare-regulatory states, of which their generous export-finance programs are a part. Even Japan, only recently emerging from years of stagnation, is reviewing its burdensome regulatory state.
The fact that foreign countries are harming themselves with an array of wrong-headed policies, which include export-finance programs, does not justify the United States’ doing the same. The Export-Import Bank is a New Deal-era agency with no relevance in an increasingly free world economy.
OH, REALLY??? DON'T YOU MEAN THIS BANK IS CORRUPTED FROM THE GOAL OF FDR NEW DEAL TARGETING SMALL BUSINESSES WANTING TO GO GLOBAL?
The most important reason that the Export-Import Bank’s charter should not be reauthorized, however, is not that the bank is ineffective. Rather, it is neither morally nor constitutionally appropriate for the federal government to hand out taxpayers’ money to special interests.
Back in FDR early 1900s the discussion on FREE TRADE policies were tied to our DOMESTIC US economy with goals of stimulating the greater domestic economy with global trade. FREE TRADE policy was passed to benefit 99% WE THE PEOPLE as workers, consumers, and small business owners. FREE TRADE since CLINTON/BUSH/OBAMA NOW TRUMP has simply meant policy creating FREE MARKETS FOR THE GLOBAL 1% only.
Below we see just that-------a small percentage of people end up better off while prices on products across all industries soar. Earlier tariffs sought to lower consumer product costs-------today global banking 1% are doing the opposite---they are making product costs in US very high-----while subsidizing global foreign corporations inside US cities as FOREIGN ECONOMIC ZONES in EXPORTING manufactured goods made in 'AMERICA' to sell cheaply overseas to a global 1% and their 2%.
The US went from domestic manufacturing of quality products----our cotton clothes were made to last----to cheap MADE IN CHINA with clothes for a few dollars lasting only a few years. This CHEAP clothing, food, cars et al will end in US as EXPORT TARIFFS make those manufactured goods cheap overseas.
“A small percentage of people in the protected industries might end up being personally somewhat better off, but it would come at the expensive of everyone else who would pay higher prices for different goods and services,” Anderson says'.
REMEMBER, THE OLD WORLD MERCHANTS OF VENICE GLOBAL 1% ARE OVERSEAS-----THEY ARE NOT IN AMERICA---THEY ARE SIMPLY COLONIZING AMERICA THROUGH CLINTON/BUSH/OBAMA AND THEIR 5% POLS AND PLAYERS.
National media does a big sell on the income tax rates for middle-working class, and poor remaining reasonable---not so much discussion on PRICES OF GOODS soaring because of TRUMP'S TARIFFS.
4 big reasons Trump tariffs could cost consumers
Marcie Geffner @marciegeffner
January 19, 2017 in Banking
1 of 5
Trump’s tariffs and consumer impact
TIMOTHY A. CLARY/Getty Images
Economists generally believe free trade between the U.S. and other nations benefits the U.S. economy and consumers. Though some jobs are sacrificed, tariff-free imports mean prices are significantly lower for a vast range of consumer products.
The U.S. has signed trade deals involving 20 countries. The most important is the North American Free Trade Agreement, or NAFTA, which removed trade barriers between the U.S., Canada and Mexico.
Renegotiating or tearing up existing trade deals would reverse the benefits for consumers, says Stuart Anderson, executive director of the National Foundation for American Policy, a research organization in Arlington, Virginia.
“A small percentage of people in the protected industries might end up being personally somewhat better off, but it would come at the expensive of everyone else who would pay higher prices for different goods and services,” Anderson says.
Without trade deals, the challenge for consumers would be how to cope financially with those higher prices, which could hit big-ticket items like cars, newly built houses and appliances as well as everyday purchases like groceries, housewares, clothing and toys.
Below we see the beginning of the return of OLD WORLD MERCHANTS OF VENICE global 1% FREE TRADE inside US-----sold as making our US corporations more competitive by favoring the IMPORTS from overseas. What were HIGH TARIFFS gave US businesses more ability to sell to AMERICAN consumers-------lowering these tariffs opened the door to cheap labor overseas foreign manufacturers winning in the AMERICAN MARKETPLACE.
WILSON did this BECAUSE-------our ROBBER BARON global banking 1% were expanding overseas to manufacture products and THEY would be those foreign corporations wanting to IMPORT into American markets.
So, WILSON working for OLD WORLD KINGS AND QUEENS told our 99% WE THE PEOPLE they needed to become more EFFICIENT so needed overseas competition.
'Wilson believed that this action would encourage American manufacturers to increase efficiency and become more competitive with their prices'.
It took several decades for these TARIFFS pushed by WILSON to expand to all US manufacturing industries so initially those hit hardest went out of business but the US economy was broad and strong----and absorbed these US industrial losses. Flash forward to today----we have no more US corporations or industry because we allowed these empire-building TARIFFS to saturate our trade deals.
TRUMP MAKING AMERICA GREAT AGAIN IS WOODROW WILSON ALL OVER----THIS TIME THE EFFICIENCY IN MANUFACTURING WILL COME FROM FOREIGN GLOBAL CORPORATIONS BRINGING OPERATIONS FROM OVERSEAS FOREIGN ECONOMIC ZONES.
Underwood Tariff aka the Revenue Act of 1913: The Tariff Reduction
What is a tariff?
A Tariff is a tax placed on goods that are imported from foreign countries.
The Underwood Tariff, aka the Revenue Act of 1913, lowered basic tariff rates from 40% to 26%, well below the 1909 Payne-Aldrich Tariff Act which had been President Taft's derisive compromise on tariffs. Many items were added to the free list, including iron, steel, woolens, farm machinery and many raw materials, groceries and removed the duties from more than a hundred other items. The purpose of the tariff reductions was to make manufacturers more efficient and provide consumers with competitive pricing.
Of course as today these global banking 1% ONE WORLD ONE GOVERNANCE for only the global 1% always called these policies of free trade aimed at the OLD WORLD MERCHANTS OF VENICE global 1% as FREEDOM REFORMS. Today they are using these same terms as they PRETEND CLINTON/BUSH/OBAMA ROBBER BARON massive frauds and government corruption neo-liberal LAISSEZ FAIRE-----is LIBERTARIAN FREEDOM.
Today, 99% of WE THE PEOPLE must think back to WILSON----HIS INSTALLING THE US FED to bring America back to being that COLONY ----as what today's MOVING FORWARD has as a goal ------now global banking 1% are installing those OLD WORLD TAX AND TARIFF POLICIES.
We notice today all the talk from global banking 1% pols and players is EFFICIENCY ------just as WILSON was saying in these TARIFF LAWS OF 1913.
I. Woodrow Wilson - The "New Freedom" reforms
A. Tariff Reform
1. Underwood Tariff of 1913
-First lowering of tariffs since the Civil War
-Went against the protectionist lobby
B. Business Reform - Wilson's program was known as the New Freedom. (The phrase came after the campaign, as the title of a book of his speeches, and as the slogan for his administration's policies.) Wilson believed government's role was to create a level playing field. Then individual energy and business competition would give Americans lives both decent and free from big-brother intrusions. His solution for monopoly was antitrust prosecution and break-up.
1. Federal Trade Act (1914)
-Set up FTC or Federal Trade Commission to investigate and halt unfair and illegal business practices. The FTC could put a halt to these illegal business practices by issuing what is known as a "cease and desist order."
2. Clayton Antitrust Act (1914)
-Declared certain businesses illegal (interlocking directorates, trusts, horizontal mergers)
-Unions and the Grange were not subject to antitrust laws. This made unions legal!
-Strikes, boycotts, picketing and the collection of strike benefit funds ruled legal
C. Banking Reform - Needed elastic currency, ability to control the amount of $ in circulation.
1. Creation of Federal Reserve System
- Federal Reserve Banks in 12 districts would print and coin money as well as set interest rates. In this way the "Fed," as it was called, could control the money supply and effect the value of currency. The more money in circulation the lower the value and inflation went up. The less money in circulation the greater the value and this would lower inflation.
2. Federal Farm Loan Act set up Farm Loan Banks to support farmers.
TRUMP and national media are calling all this PROTECTIONISM------they are not explaining how US CITIES DEEMED FOREIGN ECONOMIC ZONES filled with foreign global manufacturing corporations EXPORTING overseas are those which would benefit. PROTECTIONISM used to mean protecting American manufacturers-----especially our small and regional manufacturing businesses. TRUMP is installing TARIFF policies that will PROTECT Chinese global manufacturing corporations inside US FOREIGN ECONOMIC ZONES from these US consumer-friendly tariff laws.
Remember who is going to be those corporations overseas now called IMPORTERS----what used to be our US corporations now made into multi-national corporations. Even our US BIG AG is now GLOBAL BIG AG growing all food overseas and shipping it back to US as IMPORTS.
So, MADE IN CHINA MADE IN AMERICA protects those foreign manufactures inside US cities----while global multi-national corporations manufacturing overseas are protected in IMPORTING products to US.
IT WAS INVENTED AS A SCAM
'Nonetheless, President Obama continues to follow his predecessors -- Reagan, Bush, Clinton, and Bush -- in the religious belief that "free trade" will save us all. It's nonsense. "Free trade" is a guaranteed ticket to the poorhouse for any nation, and the evidence is overwhelming. (Ironically, the concept of "free trade" was introduced by Henry VII in 1487 as something that England should encourage other countries to do while it maintained protectionism. It was invented as a scam'.)
MEANWHILE, US 99% OF WE THE PEOPLE---SEE ALL TARIFF PROTECTIONS GIVING US LOW CONSUMER PRICES FOR 300 YEARS -----DISAPPEAR. PRICES WILL SOAR.
This is YAHOO NEWS----remember what YAHOO means------this article is FAKE NEWS hiding the goals of Trump TARIFF GOALS and rewriting this history of tariffs and trade.
Donald Trump and the history of tariffs and trade
National Constitution Center•January 18, 2017
The 2016 elections focused more on U.S. international trade than any presidential election since 1992, particularly due to the criticisms that Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump expressed toward free trade policies and key U.S. trade agreements. Trump’s candidacy also brought renewed consideration to the historically Republican use of protectionist tariffs as a means to aid American business and manufacturing.
Prior to winning the election, Donald Trump proposed several trade policies as part of his “Contract with the American Voter”—his original 100 Days Plan—including a proposal to renegotiate or to withdraw from the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) of 1994, to withdraw from the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), and to establish tariffs to end offshoring. Trump described these actions as aimed “to protect American workers.” Now President-elect Trump, as CNN reports, will begin the process of reshaping America’s trade policy “on Day 1 of his administration,” according to a memo drafted by his transition team. For instance, Trump’s team has discussed a proposal to impose tariffs as high as 10 percent on imports, which could be implemented via executive action or as part of a tax reform package pushed through Congress. Trump’s Chief of Staff Reince Priebus also proposed a 5 percent tariff on imports.
But what will higher tariffs mean for the U.S. economy? Is there any historical precedent for what Trump is proposing? A brief review of the history of tariffs and trade in the United States might help to put Trump’s tariff proposals in perspective.
- History of protectionism
Hamilton offered theoretical justifications for protecting manufacturing as an economic philosophy, countering Jeffersonian arguments that agricultural development was the ultimate source of wealth; instead, manufacturing—which could increase productivity, improve agriculture, and diversify employment—should be protected and encouraged, he argued. As Dartmouth economist Douglas Irwin writes, “To this day, the report is often heralded as the quintessential American statement against the laissez faire doctrine of free trade and for activist government policies—including protectionist tariffs—to promote industrialization.” Hamilton, however, was not an extreme protectionist; he was skeptical of “exorbitant” tariffs that could grant to manufacturing “a premature monopoly of the markets” and even “beget a general spirit of smuggling.”
Jefferson, the “republican agrarian,” initially advocated for freer trade policies, fearing that high tariffs would favor northern industrialists over southern farmers. In a report he drafted as Secretary of State in 1793, Jefferson envisioned a global commercial system based on “friendly arrangements” and freed of the “shackles” of restrictive duties. Only against those countries that maintained duties would the United States be justified in enacting “defensive and protecting measures.” As President, for instance, Jefferson enacted a disastrously strict embargo against England and suspended trade with Europe in retaliation for harassment of U.S. ships. Yet over time, even Jefferson changed his mind on the benefits of manufacturing and leaned toward protectionism in order to foster it. In 1816, he wrote to Benjamin Austin: “We must now place the manufacturer by the side of the agriculturist. . . . Shall we make our own comforts or go without them at the will of a foreign nation? He, therefore, who is now against domestic manufacture must be for reducing us either to dependence on that foreign nation or to be clothed in skins and to live like wild beasts in dens and caverns. I am not one of these.” As Jefferson recognized, the United States was a manufacturing nation, and its tariff and trade policies affecting manufacturing interests were intricately intertwined with the future and success of the American economy.
Congress passed the first protective tariff in 1789, placing a 5 percent tax placed on most imported goods. From 1790-92, subsequent Acts raised rates to as high as 15 percent, yet (in the absence of a federal income tax) were mostly aimed at raising revenue. But in 1816, the Jeffersonian Congress adopted an explicitly protectionist tariff, with rates between 25-30 percent. Protectionism peaked in 1828 with the so-called Tariff of Abominations, under which average tariff rates rose to nearly 49 percent. This precipitated the Nullification Crisis and foreshadowed Southern secession, leading to the Civil War.
By 1857, tariffs were down again, to around 20 percent; yet protectionists—culminating in the Republican “Standpatters” of President William Howard Taft’s day—wanted to keep tariffs high. The Hamiltonian emphasis on moderate duties to encourage, but not protect, domestic producers, served the interests of port-city merchants, but did not meet the demands of domestic manufacturers who wanted to shut the door on foreign imports. As Paul Wolman explains in Most Favored Nation: The Republican Revisionists and U.S. Tariff Policy, protectionists further argued that the size and value of the U.S. market justified higher foreign rates, and warned that too-low rates would encourage the growth of “cheap labor” in Europe and would hurt the U.S. market in the long run. As steel, oil, and other Northern and Midwestern industries demanded protection, protectionism would come to dominate most of the Republican Party and its policies. Over time, U.S. industries like steel and oil soared; U.S. Steel became the first billion-dollar company in the United States.
Rates were finally lowered under President Woodrow Wilson’s Underwood Tariff of 1913, yet raised again by the infamous Smoot-Hawley tariff of 1930, “the last outrage inflicted by the Republican protectionists,” which raised rates on imports to their highest levels in over 100 years as a response to the Great Depression. Yet this led to retaliatory tariffs by major U.S. trade partners, which restricted trade and contributed to prolonged effects of the depression. As a report by the CATO Institute notes, “the memory of the Smoot-Hawley tariff has kept Americans committed to a free-trade policy”—at least until recently.
- From revisionism to free trade
Eventually, as U.S. corporations realized the virtue of the global economy—and the potential for the nation to become the world’s dominant economic power, perhaps even empire—they too leaned toward reductionism and freer trade policies. Consumers would join the fight for revisionism as well, as they often paid the price for protectionism. High tariff walls both increased the price of imported goods as well as enabled domestic manufacturers to charge higher prices—creating an artificial price “floor”—without fear of foreign competition lowering prices in the U.S. marketplace. Tariff reductionism gave way to a stronger free-trade consensus, which led to modern free trade bilateral and multilateral agreements, such as the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) that abolished tariffs between the United States, Canada and Mexico.
- Trump’s Protectionism revival
Some commentators point out that Trump’s brand of protectionism may result in businesses bringing “extra-economic considerations to bear on their decisions about when and how to downsize, lay off workers, outsource jobs, and make other communally disruptive changes,” and thereby decide to keep U.S. manufacturing jobs. Others argue that bringing back higher protective tariffs won’t result in more jobs, because rising productivity and technological advancements are the real cause of job loss in manufacturing, regardless of what trade barriers may be in effect. By the same token, other economists argue that although free trade creates wealth, it also does not necessarily create jobs—it instead “creates income for the community by reallocating jobs and capital from lower-productivity to higher-productivity sectors of the economy.” So free trade may reduce domestic labor-intensive manufacturing or textile jobs, but may breed more technical jobs in electronics, for instance, where skilled employees may have a “comparative advantage.”
But Trump seems committed to pursuing a protectionist agenda—evidenced by his nomination of protectionist Robert Lighthizer for U.S. Trade Representative. Yet this may put Trump further at odds with the pro-trade wing of the Republican Party.
Democratic President Grover Cleveland in 1894 tread dangerous ground by taking up the tariff battle. The resulting Wilson-Gorman bill failed to satisfy western agrarian interests, and the struggle split the Democratic Party; after its defeat in 1896, it would not come back into power until the election of 1912. President William Howard Taft decided to take on the tariff issue again in 1909, something that even his ordinarily-combative predecessor, Teddy Roosevelt, had hesitated to do as Roosevelt was aware that a tariff battle could divide the Republican Party. Indeed, the Republican Party did split over the Payne-Aldrich Tariff of 1909, which helped lead to Democratic wins in the 1910 and 1912 elections.
As the protectionist House speaker “Uncle Joe” Cannon once observed: “No matter how great an improvement the new tariff may be, it almost always results in the party in power losing the election.” If Trump indeed decides to take up tariff revision, he and the Republican Party may be treading historically fraught ground, and will test whether Cannon’s thesis rings true.
We don't want to get TOO COMPLICATED in our public policy explanations but we must educate BROADLY to understand when national news and global banking 1% are HANDING US PROPAGANDA.
TRUMP uses one example in how his TARIFF REFORMS for MADE IN AMERICA are protectionist------helping US manufacturers. In one case he targets WHIRLPOOL, which indeed was once a US CORPORATION but has become that multi-national corporation headquartered in Canada.
TRUMP would have us believe that targeting his TARIFF to protect WHIRLPOOL in CANADA would help US workers. We have shouted over and again, all US corporations still remaining---and that includes CANADIAN as NORTH AMERICA-----are loaded with corporate bond debt to be pushed into bankruptcy and enfolded into multi-national corporations overseas. Below we see those mergers and acquisitions of foreign corporations ----now, if WHIRLPOOL CANADA goes bankrupt----then this multi-national corporation gets that TARIFF.
'Whirlpool Europe, Middle East & Africa (EMEA) was born in 1989 with the acquisition of Ignis/Philips, and was traditionally headquartered in Comerio, in the Northern Italian province of Varese, close to Milan'.
Now, shady STOCK RATING CORPORATION MOODY'S states Whirlpool's extending its corporate bond debt LONG-TERM makes it more stable-----when in fact it brings WHIRLPOOL CANADA to a BBB rating. Remember, only top tier tranches are protected in corporate bankruptcy---AAA -----so BBB for Whirlpool in a global bond market collapse will send it into bankruptcy to become that global multi-national corporation changing ownership to foreign inside any US FOREIGN ECONOMIC ZONE having a WHIRLPOOL plant.
Feb 22, 2013 @ 02:46 PM 775 2 Free Issues of Forbes
Corporate debt: Whirlpool inks longest-dated bond offer after funding costs fall
'The new 2043 issue now marks the company’s longest-dated maturity on its books, after previously carrying no debt maturing later than 2022'.
Rising interest rates threaten bond prices - Investment Executivem.investmentexecutive.com/back-issues/9016421/ Oct 26, 2017 ...
In Canada, an A-rated corporate bond has a yield spread of 113 bps, on average, over federal bonds of the equivalent term. Drop to 10-year, BBB-rated corporates and the spread rises to 183 bps. A longer-term, BBB-rated corporate has a 240- bps spread. And high-yield corporates, on average, have ...
As with the SOLAR PANEL TARIFF we described China being that major solar panel manufacturer bringing that to US cities as FOREIGN ECONOMIC ZONES-----so too will this TARIFF said to target our CANADIAN WHIRLPOOL will end targeting those foreign partners which will take those US WHIRLPOOL plants and tariff protections.
For those 99% of US citizens not caring about all this wheeling and dealing----what are called JOBS FOR AMERICAN WORKERS disappears---and what are called price savings in this case for washing machines becomes almost a doubling of price.
Whirlpool Says It's Adding Jobs After Trump Tariff Decision
January 22, 2018, 6:33 PM EST
- Penalty will hit washing machines from Samsung, LG Electronics
- Appliance giant has complained of excessively low prices
The new full-time employees will work at a factory in Clyde, Ohio, Whirlpool said on Monday. The American appliance maker also vowed to make broader investments in manufacturing and innovation.
Whirlpool, based in Benton Harbor, Michigan, renewed allegations last year that its South Korean rivals illegally undercut prices on washing machines. In May, it filed a so-called safeguard petition, which is meant to provide help to domestic manufacturers hurt by importers selling products at excessively low levels.
“This is a victory for American workers and consumers alike,” Chief Executive Officer Jeff Fettig said in a statement on Monday. “By enforcing our existing trade laws, President Trump has ensured American workers will compete on a level playing field with their foreign counterparts, enabled new manufacturing jobs here in America and will usher in a new era of innovation for consumers everywhere.”
Trade and domestic manufacturing were signature issues in Donald Trump’s campaign for the White House, and Fettig served as a member of the president’s manufacturing council. That group was disbanded last year after a controversy over Trump’s remarks about a white supremacist rally in Charlottesville, Virginia.
Here we see almost everything US consumer 99% of WE THE PEOPLE buy on a regular basis having reasonable prices because of existing TARIFFS 300 years in making. Almost all our clothing today is SYNTHETIC-----almost all food sources are heavily with tariff protections for US consumers---all this will be going away in MOVING FORWARD ONE WORLD ONE GOVERNANCE.
The goal of GLOBAL CORPORATE CAMPUS SOCIALISM is to have those US citizens able to get jobs forced to live on global corporate campuses----be schooled, clothed, fed, and workers dorms all replacing CASH WAGES. We shout US citizens will lose ability to afford cell phones or those internet connections----we will not be able to afford ordinary utility prices----forget affording that car--------so too will clothes and food outside of corporate campus cafeterias be too expensive.
Looks like Jimmy Carter got his two cents in with PEANUT TARIFFS. Didn't Jimmy Carter just sell his PEANUT FARM in Georgia----just in time for the end of his TARIFF.
25 American Products That Rely On Huge Protective Tariffs To Survive
Congress is preparing assail China for protectionist policies, like a 105.4% tariff on US poultry.
But anyone who thinks America is a perfect practitioner of free trade needs to wake up.
The International Trade Commission lists over 12,000 specific tariffs on imports to America. Hundreds of agricultural, textile, and manufacturing items are highly protected. So are obscure items like live foxes.
As American deindustrialization continues apace, that list will just get longer.
Non-specific dairy products -- 20% tariff on imports
Most vegetables -- 20% tariff
Asparagus and sweet corn -- 21.3% tariff
Corsets and gloves -- 23.5% tariff
Wool clothes -- 25% tariff
Most auto parts -- 25% tariff
Commercial plateware -- 28% tariff
Synthetic outerwear -- 28.2% tariff
Apricot, cantaloupe, and dates -- 29.8% tariff
Garlic or onion powder -- 29.8% tariff
Clothes made of synthetic fabric -- 32% tariff
Brooms -- 32% tariff
Canned tuna -- 35% tariff
Chinese tires -- 35% tariff
Leather shoes -- 37.5% tariff
Decorative glassware -- 38% tariff
Japanese leather -- 40% tariff
Sneakers -- 48% tariff
Miscellaneous ship parts -- 50% tariff
European meats, truffles, and Roquefort cheese -- 100% tariff
French jam, chocolate, and ham -- 100% tariff
Shelled peanuts -- 131.8% tariff
Unshelled peanuts -- 163.8% tariff
Tobacco -- 350% tariff