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
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Tariffs were very strong American worker wage protection, HENCE corporations hate tariffs. [View all]pampango
(24,692 posts)8. Yes the RTAA was FDR's first step in reversing high tariffs followed by GATT and the ITO.
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.
I did not claim anything for the article other than that it makes the case that getting rid of high tariffs was a progressive victory. And that corporations thrived under high tariffs then at the expense of the working class.
FDR only wanted to lower tariff on imports on the sole condition that corresponding partner nations lower their tariffs on American exports as well ...
Which is quite different from the republican policy of unilaterally raising tariffs which he was starting to reverse. He had campaigned against those republican high tariffs in 1932 and the RTAA was his first move to reverse them.
As you know FDR's plan for the post-WWII world was for international organizations to govern international politics (the UN), finance (the IMF and World Bank) and trade (the ITO and GATT). He wanted to make it more difficult for countries to unilaterally raise tariffs as republicans had done in the 1920's.
Therefore, FDR's trade policy was the opposite of today's free trade agreements ...
FDR believed in the value of trade. He believed in lowering tariffs not raising them. He believed that multilateral governance of trade would make it difficult for countries to unilaterally raise tariffs.
How far would FDR have gone in supporting lower tariffs? I don't know. He considered high tariffs to be isolationist republican policy because that's what came before him. Perhaps he would have reversed his position in time.
It certainly seems that he believed that domestic policies were more important than trade in improving living standards. Empowering unions, raising taxes on the rich, making the safety net better, tighter corporate regulation government spending to boost employment - all liberal domestic policies that made life better for American workers. This is the same combination of liberal domestic policies and trade that progressive countries follow today.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
60 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
Tariffs were very strong American worker wage protection, HENCE corporations hate tariffs. [View all]
livingwagenow
Feb 2014
OP
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
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
The VAT is not a tariff. The VAT effects the final cost of imports and domestic products equally.
pampango
Feb 2014
#31
Fine. So the "Import Turnover Tax" is "the equal of the domestic VAT". When you combine the two
pampango
Feb 2014
#33
Yes there is. Even the poll you reference shows republicans want more to 'get tough' with China.
pampango
Feb 2014
#53
Ditto. The links you posted to make your case were to posts from a "banned troll".
pampango
Feb 2014
#60
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
You asked: "Are you really suggesting that the global economy in the 1920's - 1930's has any
pampango
Feb 2014
#56
No - Fair means developing nations do not become colonies of multinational corporations
Armstead
Feb 2014
#25
Only two of the DU Corporate Warrior Brigade? It was a Sunday, I suppose.
Egalitarian Thug
Feb 2014
#52