Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

brentspeak

(18,290 posts)
6. Ah, yes, you again, with the corporate propaganda
Sun Feb 2, 2014, 09:29 PM
Feb 2014

while hiding behind FDR's avatar, trying to suck Democrats in while parroting US Chamber of Commerce propaganda. On a Democratic site, no less.

How many times on this site do people have to call you out on this?

First of all, not only are you falsely implying that the article you excerpted above is somehow arguing against the imposition of new tariffs (it's not), you apparently were unaware that the article's author is actually completely opposed to today's so-called "free trade" agreements.

Second of all -- and this is for other DUer's out there; I've already responded to you specifically on this numerous times -- FDR only wanted to lower tariff on imports on the sole conditions that a) corresponding partner nations lower their tariffs on American exports as well; and b) the lowering of import tariffs on foreign goods into the US must also be accompanied by a rock-solid guarantee that American domestic production would not be compromised (a stipulation that every subsequent US trade agreement after FDR has completely ignored):



https://www.princeton.edu/~achaney/tmve/wiki100k/docs/Reciprocal_Tariff_Act.html

The Reciprocal Trade Agreements Act (enacted June 12, 1934, ch. 474, 48 Stat. 943, 19 U.S.C. § 1351) provided for the negotiation of tariff agreements between the United States and separate nations, particularly Latin American countries. The Act served as an institutional reform intended to authorize the president to negotiate with foreign nations to reduce tariffs in return for reciprocal reductions in tariffs in the United States. It resulted in a reduction of duties.

President Franklin D. Roosevelt was authorized by the Act for a fixed period of time to negotiate on bilateral basis with other countries and then implement reductions in tariffs (up to 50% of existing tariffs) in exchange for compensating tariff reductions by the partner trading country. Roosevelt was also instructed to maximize market access abroad without jeopardizing domestic industry, and reduce tariffs only as necessary to promote exports in accord with the "needs of various branches of American production.".


Therefore, FDR's trade policy was the opposite of today's free trade agreements, which are authored deliberately to relocate domestic industry to overseas facilities and which are not required at all to consider domestic American production.

The very last thing in the world FDR wanted was for American corporations to move their domestic manufacturing facilities overseas so that the corporations could then import their cheap, foreign-made back into the United States. That was a nightmare scenario that FDR did not want, but it is the scenario that you and the people who provide your talking points support.





Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

Other nations have very strong tariff systems in place. truedelphi Feb 2014 #1
Couldn't agree more! K&R It's pretty simple, B Calm Feb 2014 #2
+100. closeupready Feb 2014 #3
No. Getting rid of high tariffs was a big progressive win in the early 20th century. pampango Feb 2014 #4
"high tariffs" are one thing; like any other regulation, tariffs can and should be used TheFrenchRazor Feb 2014 #5
Ah, yes, you again, with the corporate propaganda brentspeak Feb 2014 #6
+1 B Calm Feb 2014 #7
I think FDR was a "globalist" too so the term does not bother me. n/t pampango Feb 2014 #9
Yes the RTAA was FDR's first step in reversing high tariffs followed by GATT and the ITO. pampango Feb 2014 #8
"corporations thrived under high tariffs then at the expense of the working class" brentspeak Feb 2014 #22
Exactly. Historically corporations have thrived and the working class suffered under both high and pampango Feb 2014 #26
You might need a lifesaver jacket brentspeak Feb 2014 #29
The VAT is not a tariff. The VAT effects the final cost of imports and domestic products equally. pampango Feb 2014 #31
You continue to make stuff up brentspeak Feb 2014 #32
Fine. So the "Import Turnover Tax" is "the equal of the domestic VAT". When you combine the two pampango Feb 2014 #33
I see you've thrown in the towel brentspeak Feb 2014 #34
You are really good at titles for your posts. :) pampango Feb 2014 #48
There is no voter "partisan attitude" about US policy towards China brentspeak Feb 2014 #50
Yes there is. Even the poll you reference shows republicans want more to 'get tough' with China. pampango Feb 2014 #53
Doesn't say much about the quality of your posts here brentspeak Feb 2014 #58
Ditto. The links you posted to make your case were to posts from a "banned troll". pampango Feb 2014 #60
You just nailed the problem with modern "free trade" agreements Armstead Feb 2014 #24
"What do you think these current "free trade" agreements are intended to do?" pampango Feb 2014 #27
Motives and sources of power are what is really important Armstead Feb 2014 #28
Are you really suggesting that the global economy in the 1920's - 1930's has any Egalitarian Thug Feb 2014 #51
I believe that history is relevant. And I believe that the experience of other countries is too. pampango Feb 2014 #54
So, you choose to ignore the question. Completely expected. Egalitarian Thug Feb 2014 #55
You asked: "Are you really suggesting that the global economy in the 1920's - 1930's has any pampango Feb 2014 #56
Thanks for answering. Egalitarian Thug Feb 2014 #57
kick B Calm Feb 2014 #10
Let me know how you plan to re-implement tariffs... Spider Jerusalem Feb 2014 #11
Want to be more specific on raw materials and energy we need? B Calm Feb 2014 #12
Nine million barrels of oil a day, for a start Spider Jerusalem Feb 2014 #13
The earth receives enough energy from the sun in B Calm Feb 2014 #14
Let me know when you have enough installed solar capacity for that. Spider Jerusalem Feb 2014 #15
I say we start with the tariffs, maybe then we could B Calm Feb 2014 #16
Tariffs lead to trade wars. Spider Jerusalem Feb 2014 #17
If we just had FAIR tariffs it would be a huge start! B Calm Feb 2014 #18
Define "fair"? Spider Jerusalem Feb 2014 #19
Not laissez-faire capitalism! B Calm Feb 2014 #20
So... Spider Jerusalem Feb 2014 #21
No - Fair means developing nations do not become colonies of multinational corporations Armstead Feb 2014 #25
Considering that we are the #1 exporter of raw materials to China brentspeak Feb 2014 #23
We export virtually zero oil. mathematic Feb 2014 #30
The US does not export oil. Spider Jerusalem Feb 2014 #35
Uh, we import crude when we really don't need to brentspeak Feb 2014 #36
I see you don't understand economics. Spider Jerusalem Feb 2014 #37
You claimed that the US can't produce 9 million barrels of oil/day brentspeak Feb 2014 #38
I linked you to figures that say the US doesn't. Spider Jerusalem Feb 2014 #39
That wasn't you who said we need "9 million barrels/day"? brentspeak Feb 2014 #40
Either you're being wilfully obtuse or you're remarkably dense Spider Jerusalem Feb 2014 #41
So when you said that we need to produce 9 million barrels/day brentspeak Feb 2014 #42
No, I said the US needs to import nine million barrels a day. Spider Jerusalem Feb 2014 #43
What I'd prefer you to clear up brentspeak Feb 2014 #44
Who said anything about tariffs on China? Spider Jerusalem Feb 2014 #45
The OP did not say uniform tariffs on every country for every product Armstead Feb 2014 #46
Again, you clearly don't understand economics. Spider Jerusalem Feb 2014 #47
re introduce tariffs frwrfpos Feb 2014 #49
Only two of the DU Corporate Warrior Brigade? It was a Sunday, I suppose. Egalitarian Thug Feb 2014 #52
Free trade = Chineses wages + American prices - good jobs. nt TheFrenchRazor Feb 2014 #59
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Tariffs were very strong ...»Reply #6