There were many policy mistakes that contributed to the Great Depression.
Monetary Policy presumably deserves the lion’s share of the blame, but politicians also increased the fiscal burden of government and radically expanded the amount of regulatory intervention.
And a tit-for-tat trade war, mostly caused by the United States (Hoover’s Smoot-Hawley tariff), also contributed to the economic destruction of the 1930s.
Sadly, history may be repeating itself, at least with regard to trade. That was my message in this recent discussion with Charles Payne.
This is why Trump’s protectionism is so alarming.
Let’s explore this issue.
Peter Coy, in a column for Bloomberg, explains the dangers of Trump’s approach. Simply stated, it’s not a good idea to let the protectionist genie out of its bottle.
…the president has instigated a trade war…his actions are eroding trust among both allies and rivals. Once gone, trust is hard to reestablish… U.S. corporate leaders soft-pedaled their criticisms of his trade policies
in the past because they hoped he’d come around to their point of view. …Now they worry that waiting for the squall to pass may be a mistake because real damage could be done in the meantime. …the threats and counter threats create uncertainty that may induce businesses to hold back investment in new plants and equipment, known as capital spending, or capex.
We’re already seeing some blowback against the United States. But as I stated in the interview, the big concern is what comes next. The economic damage can be significant.
And all bets are off if the trade war goes hot. Fink warned that stocks could fall 10 percent to 15 percent if the Trump administration approves tariffs on an additional $200 billion of Chinese imports. …In the longer term, trade barriers make the global economy permanently less efficient because sheltered economies produce things that could be made more cheaply elsewhere. …if countries restored their tariff rates to their 1990 levels, wiping out almost 30 years of reductions, world average living standards in 2060 would end up about 14 percent lower.
Sadly, Trump seems oblivious to these concerns. So, just like 80 years ago, we’re heading down the tit-for-tat path.
What’s instructive for today is how the U.S. extracted itself from the beggar-thy-neighbor spiral that started with the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act of 1930 and helped deepen the Great Depression. President Franklin Roosevelt lobbied for and got the Reciprocal Trade Agreement Act of 1934, in which Congress ceded some authority over international commerce to the president… To Dartmouth College economist Douglas Irwin, a historian of free trade, one lesson of the 1930s is that “it’s not as easy to snap back as you think” from a trade war.
Irwin’s argument is similar to the point I made in the interview about needing an adult to take charge before things spiral out of control.
P.S. Since I’ve referenced the Great Depression, I can’t resist reminding people that FDR was so awful that he actually tried to impose a 100 percent tax rate by executive fiat.
[…] Was it the fault of capitalism that Hoover imposed protectionism? […]
[…] Was it the fault of capitalism that Hoover imposed protectionism? […]
[…] Unless, of course, you think it’s a good idea to copy the policies of Herbert Hoover. […]
[…] Unless, of course, you think it’s a good idea to copy the policies of Herbert Hoover. […]
[…] Unless, of course, you think it’s a good idea to copy the policies of Herbert Hoover. […]
[…] is why I hope this meme is the lesson that people remember from the Trump years (also the message we should have learned from the Hoover […]
[…] The last time the United States made a big push for protectionism was in the 1930s. At the risk of understatement, that was not an era of prosperity. […]
[…] is why I hope this meme is the lesson that people remember from the Trump years (also the message we should have learned from the Hoover […]
[…] In other words, the small benefits that go to the industries that are sheltered from competition are very much outweighed by the damage to other sectors of the economy (a lesson that Trump could have learned if he studied real-world evidences, such as the Great Depression). […]
[…] At the risk of understatement, I’ve been rather critical of Trump’s protectionism. […]
[…] It’s not just that Trump is the most protectionist president since Herbert Hoover, though that’s certainly a damning indictment. […]
[…] Trump’s view of global trade is so bizarre, risky, uninformed, misguided, and self-destructive that I periodically try to maintain my sanity […]
[…] The last time the United States made a big push for protectionism was in the 1930s. At the risk of understatement, that was not an era of prosperity. […]
[…] the risk of understatement, repeating the policies of Herbert Hoover would be a very bad […]
[…] especially about the foolishness of copying one of the policies that contributed to the Great […]
[…] on imposing higher taxes on trade. Protectionism isn’t just bad for taxpayers, exporters, consumers, and manufacturers. It’s also a net job […]
[…] pro-Trump crowd goes after me when I condemn the President’s protectionism and wasteful […]
[…] pro-Trump crowd goes after me when I condemn the President’s protectionism and wasteful […]
[…] least that’s what I hope will happen. Especially since I don’t enjoy thinking about the alternative […]
[…] Also from Dan Mitchell is this gem on Trump’s Hoover-ish trade policies. […]
“It might take a minor hit to growth, but China will survive a trade war with the US, and Europe will have a larger piece of a market that still has much room to expand”
“Open Letter to Larry Kudlow: You need a different China strategy”
By DAVID P. GOLDMAN
http://www.atimes.com/article/open-letter-to-larry-kudlow-you-need-a-different-china-strategy/
an interesting read:
“American Narcissism and China”
BY DAVID P. GOLDMAN
https://pjmedia.com/spengler/american-narcissism-and-china-a-note-to-my-readers/
Tariffs=Taxes… so we get to pay more for stuff and provide government with more money in the process. Such a deal…
BTW,,, I’m sure all the folk who are all for taxing the imports of foreign goods, steel being a typical example, and protecting the industry would be more than glad to allow and even encourage the import of foreign drugs to compete with those mean nasty American drug companies that make too much money.
I’ll differentiate my position a bit here. Not on the benefits of free trade. On that, even unilateral free trade is better than tariffs.
However,
A) I’m still hoping Trump is just negotiating, though I’m not too optimistic (or naive) about it. I’m also not sure how long we can hang on since our adversary nations are much more resigned to government control, thus enabling their governments to stay in trade conflict for the long haul. But … but… most importantly…
B) I’m more worried about an “amicable” global environment enabling international agreements amongst global politicians (and voter-lemmings), huddling together and imposing global coercive collectivism, as in harmonized minimum tax quotas, climate activism, “sustainability” activism, harmonization of laws, and homogenization of culture into global socialism. In other words, an “amicable” world made by international “Davos Men” where you can paint your hair whatever colors you want, put as many safety pins in your cheeks and tongue, wear as many or as few clothes as you want, be whatever gender you want, have whatever skin color you have or want … so long as you are a global socialist … or at least obey the mandatory socialist policy (socialist of the left or socialist of the right, i.e. fascist, social engineer, climate engineer, human reproduction engineer … does not matter, they are all forms of socialism where perceived communal goals override individual lives, and voter lemmings are fatally addicted and bonded through their DNA to those ideologies, even if they lead to systemic collapse and destruction of the very societal goals and prosperity they espouse).
So, in many ways, what international “trust” brings is countries and nations willing to fund and sign on to the policies of global bureaucracies; OECD, IMF, climate committees, high tax harmonizations, regulation harmonizations, law and culture homogenizations into some sort of international socialist standard.
Therefore, on balance, I’d rather have tariffs rather than walk this road down to international socialism. I have not yet changed my mind on that. Yes, tariffs and counter-tariffs are bad, but global socialism ruled by international sophisticates is worse, much worse, and that is the road we seem to be traveling down. The fact that Trump was actually able to pull out of the international climate treaty was for me a very hopeful positive sign, and an indication that animosity amongst nations has also significant benefits. BTW, I view the fact that Trump was able to pull out of the global climate treaty as the pivotal highlight of his presidency so far. It was an unexpected surprise for me, I did not think he’d dare. In my mind, that alone justifies my having voted for him. Of course, I’m not naive, he has formidable opponents on the issue and a Bernie Sanders is almost certainly somewhere in America’s not so distant future, at which point a lot of irreversible turns towards hell will be taken. But for now, I’m celebrating the pivotal time when a major nation says “No, enough” and (to paraphrase our previous president) “the oceans start rising again” — and so does human freedom.
Global socialism will compound to a lot more than a 14% reduction in living standards by 2060 (compared to what living standards would have been).
Now, how effective will this intra-nation animosity be in stopping our current march towards harmonization and homogenization of taxes, regulations, laws and cultures into international socialism? That remains to be seen.
Yes, I’m all for the globalization of competition, as in unfettered movement of goods, capital and people. That is good free market globalization. But globalization to universal taxes, laws, and socialist culture, NO. Hell no!
I agree. He’s a negotiator, but he’s negotiating with China and they have a very different time horizon; whereas Trump is facing pundits, like Dan, who are thinking in months.
Trump is quite aware of the 1930’s.
Mr. Mitchell, I have enjoyed reading your blog for a few years now. In my opinion you are conflating the bargaining position of the president with the position that he actually holds. I suspect that he would clean your clock in any negotiation but take heart, he would do the same to me. Best, Charles