America's massive trade deficit: Why BIG tariffs won't hurt the United States

[pampango]

102. FDR disagreed with your version of history that Smoot-Hawley was not bad for America.

THAT's the issue that you are avoiding.

FDR never said, AFAIK, that S/H caused the Depression, but he believed that S/H (and the other republican high tariff laws that preceded it) made recovery from the Depression more difficult which is why he worked to lower tariffs once he was in office. If you believe that FDR was wrong in his opinion of S/H (and high tariffs in general) and that Herbert Hoover (and the republicans in congress) was right, be my guest, but that does not change the fact that FDR thought high tariffs were bad for trade and that trade was good for America.

"Surely you do not think that the middle class collapsed right after 1945.
That's not what I said, and you know that."

Here's what you said: "The 60 year drop in tariffs post-1945 coincides with the collapse of the Middle Class." Perhaps I missed the part of that sentence that explained at what point in the "60 year drop in tariffs" the collapse of the middle class actually did begin. What you meant might have been ""The 60 year drop in tariffs post-1945 coincides with the collapse of the Middle Class after a 35 year lag time."

My version of your sentence would be: The 30 years following the 1980's dismantling of FDR's progressive policies - republicans' success at cutting taxes for the rich, deregulating corporations and the financial sector, breaking unions and shredding the safety net - coincides with the collapse of the Middle Class."

"I will repeat, after 1945 the United States enjoyed two big counter-weights to low tariffs: we were the only industralized power base left, and the dollar was devalued."

"the only industralized power base left" - certainly true
"the dollar was devalued" - so the currency of the only country with "industralized power base left" was weak? I thought your oft-repeated point was the weak economies cause devalued currencies. Shouldn't relatively strong economies (like the US after 1945) have had a highly valued currency? Do you have a link to show that "the dollar was devalued" after 1945? Whose currency then was strong right after 1945?

Do you deny that employers use overseas cheap labor to bust unions? Of course not. Do you deny that employers use cheap labor from nonunion right-to-work states to bust unions? Of course they do. Do you deny that employers use contract and temporary labor to bust unions? Of course they do.

But you know what? Employers are able to bust unions because our laws and culture allow them to. Canada trades more than we do and their workforce is almost 30% unionized compared to the US' rate of 11%. Why? Because they are a progressive country and their laws and culture protect unions. Sweden trades more than we do and their workforce is 68% unionized. Why? Because they are a progressive country and their laws and culture protect unions. The same is true for Germany (18.5%), the UK (26.5%), Australia (18%), Norway (54%). I could go on.

Progressive countries do not have laws that allow right-to-work states/provinces in them so that employers can bust unions without even leaving the country. (Our employers had been doing this for decades before Mao died and China joined the world economy.) Do you deny this?

Progressive countries do not have national governments that break unions (like PATCO) which convinces private employers that is a viable strategy to pursue. Progressive countries protect their unions period. But they do not fear trade. It is a much larger part of their economies than it is of ours and yet unions are much stronger in them than they are here. Do deny this?