Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act (1930)

Latest story

125 Shares149 Views

When It Comes to Tariffs, Trump Can’t Have It All

by

The president has promised big results, from raising revenue to reviving domestic manufacturing. But many of his goals undermine one another.President Trump has issued an unremitting stream of tariff threats in his first month in office, accompanied by nearly as many reasons for why they should go into effect.Tariffs on Canada, Mexico and China are a cudgel to force those countries, America’s largest trading partners, to crack down on the flow drugs and migrants into the United States. Levies on steel, aluminum and copper are a way to protect domestic industries that are important to defense, while those on cars will prop up a critical base of manufacturing. A new system of “reciprocal” tariffs is envisioned as a way to stop America from being “ripped off” by the rest of the world.Those goals are almost always followed by another reason for hitting allies and competitors alike with tariffs: “Long term, it’s going to make our country a fortune,” Mr. Trump said as he signed an executive order on reciprocal tariffs this month.Mr. Trump maintains that tariffs will impose few, if any, costs on the United States and rake in huge sums of revenue that the government can use to pay for tax cuts and spending and even to balance the federal budget.But trade experts point out that tariffs cannot simultaneously achieve all of the goals that Mr. Trump has expressed. In fact, many of his aims contradict and undermine one another.For instance, if Mr. Trump’s tariffs prod companies to make more of their products in the United States, American consumers will buy fewer imported goods. As a result, tariffs would generate less revenue for the government.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

More stories

  • 125 Shares169 Views

    in Economy

    Trump’s Vast Tariffs Would Rock Global Businesses and Shake Alliances

    by

    Economists said Donald Trump’s plan to return trade barriers to levels not seen in generations would be “a grenade thrown in the heart” of the international system.At a rally in Latrobe, Pa., earlier this month, former President Donald J. Trump paused in front of a crowd holding signs that read “Save Our Steel” to pay homage to one of his favorite concepts.Tariff, he said, “is the most beautiful word in the dictionary. More beautiful than love, more beautiful than respect.”Mr. Trump demonstrated a deep affinity for tariffs during his presidency, using them as a cudgel to punish both allies and rivals as he tried to force companies to make their products in the United States.If he wins again in November, he is promising a much more aggressive approach, a full-scale upending of the trading system in which the United States is no longer a partner in the global flow of goods, but a mercantilist nation intent on walling itself off from the world.The former president, who has described himself as a “Tariff Man,” has talked about tariffs as the solution to an array of problems, from making the country rich to funding tax cuts and paying for child care. But most central to his vision is the ability of tariffs to reverse decades of globalization and force factories to move back to the United States.Mr. Trump has threatened to slap steep tariffs on every country — the most punishing levies reserved for China — to raise the cost of foreign products and try to reorder global supply chains. His tariffs would hit almost all U.S. imports, more than $3 trillion of goods.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

  • 113 Shares199 Views

    in Economy

    What Across-the-Board Tariffs Could Mean for the Global Economy

    by

    Donald J. Trump, the Republican presidential nominee, has floated the idea of a 10 percent tariff on all U.S. imports, a plan that economists say could badly damage trade.Former President Donald J. Trump blames the global trading system for inflicting a long list of ills on the American economy including lost jobs, closed foreign markets and an overvalued dollar.The remedy, he insists, is simple: tariffs. Mr. Trump, the Republican nominee for president, has repeatedly said he would raise tariffs if elected. China, a geopolitical and economic rival, would face an additional 50 or 60 percent tariff on its exports to the United States. He has also floated the idea of a 10 to 20 percent surcharge on exports from the rest of the world.Although smaller than the percentage proposed for Chinese exports, an across-the-board tariff has the potential to deliver a much more devastating jolt to world trade, many economists warn.Such a surcharge would not distinguish between rivals and allies, critical necessities and nonessentials, ailing industries and superstars, or countries adhering to trade treaties and those violating them. (Democrats have also embraced tariffs as a policy tool, but Vice President Kamala Harris, the Democratic presidential nominee, has criticized Mr. Trump’s universal approach as inflationary.)Here is what you need to know about the idea of a universal tariff on all imports.In 1971, President Richard M. Nixon levied a 10 percent surcharge on all taxable imports.Associated PressWhat are the historical precedents?Mr. Trump’s broad-brush tariffs frequently evoke comparisons with the destructive global trade war that the United States helped to initiate in the 1930s with the Smoot-Hawley tariffs passed by Congress. The Senate Historical Office has called that law “among the most catastrophic acts in congressional history.”We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More