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 General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

pampango

(24,692 posts)
87. That tariff sounds like the Fordney–McCumber Tariff of 1922 (the 'scientific tariff')
Thu Mar 22, 2012, 01:53 PM
Mar 2012

The Fordney–McCumber Tariff of 1922 introduced two new concepts:

The first was the scientific tariff. The purpose of the scientific tariff was to equalize production costs among countries so that no country could undercut the prices charged by American companies. The difference of production costs was calculated by the Tariff Commission.

A second novelty was the American Selling Price. This allowed the president to calculate the duty based on the price of the American price of a good, not the imported good.
The bill also gave the president the power to raise or lower rates on products if it was recommended by the Tariff Commission.

The tariff was supported by the Republican party and conservatives and was generally opposed by the Democratic Party and liberal progressives.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fordney%E2%80%93McCumber_Tariff


Republicans had enacted higher tariffs in 1921 two months after Harding succeeded Wilson. Of course, the 1921 and 1922 tariffs, which were largely opposed by Democrats, did not solve our economic problems. Indeed by 1929 income inequality had reached unprecedented levels (since exceeded in the past decade, of course) so republicans came back to the idea again (apparently perceived by them as the only tool in their tool box) in 1929 with Smoot/Hawley.

During the 1928 presidential campaign Hoover promised to raise tariff rates again.


In their certitude that tariff hikes were the answer, no matter what the question, Smoot’s Republicans resemble today’s Republicans, who put a similar faith in tax cuts.

http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/2/eb6357c0-3d1a-11e0-bbff-00144feabdc0.html#axzz1EaoLpkGn


The Utah Republican senator Reed Smoot ... wanted to prop up the market in sugar beets, which his constituents grew. He also wanted to protect citizens from imported pornography. ... Economists warned, almost unanimously, that he was on the path of folly. Smoot dismissed them as the dark, “powerful forces” that “lurk in the international economic conferences held in Europe”.

(I)n June 1930, it passed in a flurry of parliamentary manoeuvres and vote-buying, and President Herbert Hoover signed it into law, conceding it was not “perfect”. The Senate bill passed on a vote of 44 to 42, with 39 Republicans and 5 Democrats voting in favor of the bill. The conference committee then aligned the two versions, largely by moving to the greater House tariffs. The House passed the conference bill on a vote of 222 to 153, with the support of 208 Republicans and 14 Democrats. Republicans lost their House majority in that autumn’s elections to an opposition (Democrats) urging repeal.

Franklin D. Roosevelt spoke against the act while campaigning for president during 1932. ... The Smoot-Hawley Tariff was a reflection of Republican Party policy. In his 1932 election campaign platform Franklin Delano Roosevelt pledged to lower tariffs. He and the now-Democratic Congress did so in the Reciprocal Trade Agreements Act of 1934. ... After World War II this undergirded a push towards multi-lateral trading agreements that would prevent a similar situation from unfolding.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smoot-Hawley_Tariff_Act
How about we just close the loopholes and they be taxed in America? nt Snake Alchemist Mar 2012 #1
This message was self-deleted by its author Tesha Mar 2012 #2
It's St. Paddies week so we're dancing the "Irish Two Step" here.... Pholus Mar 2012 #4
What we really need is a tax holiday. Snake Alchemist Mar 2012 #7
Good link! I missed that one, though I remember that particular bunch of lobbying! Pholus Mar 2012 #8
I'm against granting a tax holiday. Chan790 Mar 2012 #21
I was of course joking. nt Snake Alchemist Mar 2012 #33
Yeah.. and that's half of what they should be paying... SomethingFishy Mar 2012 #20
Because they don't need us any more. Lizzie Poppet Mar 2012 #42
Amen /nt think Mar 2012 #43
Yep. Cultish is right. Muskypundit Mar 2012 #96
Lies, damned lies and statistics. LanternWaste Mar 2012 #54
This message was self-deleted by its author Tesha Mar 2012 #73
Thanks for admitting that Apple is no longer an American company. Pholus Mar 2012 #3
So that they can continue to have access to our copyright/TM and legal protections leveymg Mar 2012 #5
They should definitely let the Chinese protect their intellectual property rights. shcrane71 Mar 2012 #15
It's potential leverage over the multinationals, and should be used as such by the federal gov't leveymg Mar 2012 #19
Why should they , if tarrifs for moving someting into China is 20% and moving someting into the U S RDANGELO Mar 2012 #6
This message was self-deleted by its author Tesha Mar 2012 #48
The U.S has been the worlds bitch when it comes to "free trade" Muskypundit Mar 2012 #98
This message was self-deleted by its author Tesha Mar 2012 #102
Isn't that always the excuse used about unions? nt Snake Alchemist Mar 2012 #113
You've noticed the "cheap labor" arguments underlying this too.... Pholus Mar 2012 #115
so Apple should build in China. What on earth for? Progressive dog Mar 2012 #9
Here, let me help you understand the mindset of the Apple fan. trotsky Mar 2012 #13
I certainly hope you don't do this for free. Ikonoklast Mar 2012 #10
I think this post shows this *has* to be done for free... Pholus Mar 2012 #11
Doing Apple's work for free is probably the only way to repatriate their manufacturing. Liberal Veteran Mar 2012 #18
I dunno. It's cheaper if you work em to death for free then harvest their organs too. Pholus Mar 2012 #65
Don't forget to take a bonus if you take out "Dead Peasants Insurance" first. Liberal Veteran Mar 2012 #70
and then make some soylent green out of what's left. Pholus Mar 2012 #72
Brand loyalty taken to extremes is creepy varelse Mar 2012 #139
Why???? bowens43 Mar 2012 #12
How would that effect the cost of Apple products in the US? Puzzledtraveller Mar 2012 #14
This message was self-deleted by its author savalez Mar 2012 #108
It probably wouldn't, because they don't seem to be savalez Mar 2012 #109
I will attest that many people have I-Phones davidpdx Mar 2012 #16
They will move production back to the U.S. when... Javaman Mar 2012 #17
...or when we end our "free-trade" policies whole-hog. Chan790 Mar 2012 #23
Stop bringing reality into the discussion. Javaman Mar 2012 #28
'This American Life' did a retraction show last week RZM Mar 2012 #36
guess they can take the suicide nets down then /nt think Mar 2012 #37
That doesn't speak to my point at all RZM Mar 2012 #40
That must be why Foxconn is opening 5 new Ipad factories in Brazil: think Mar 2012 #41
Ahhhhh, the barn door AFTER the horses have left argument then.... Pholus Mar 2012 #58
This message was self-deleted by its author Tesha Mar 2012 #50
Because JustAnotherGen Mar 2012 #22
This message was self-deleted by its author Tesha Mar 2012 #25
Wow. An answer to the CARBON question. Guess the other ones are too hard, huh? Pholus Mar 2012 #29
And I'm an insider JustAnotherGen Mar 2012 #53
With free trade policies currently in place, the answer is most definitely no. Selatius Mar 2012 #24
The NYTIMES quoted the increased price if they WERE manufactured here. Pholus Mar 2012 #26
Insightful, thanks. Puzzledtraveller Mar 2012 #30
It's not the greed that bothers me, it's the apparent pride in it... Pholus Mar 2012 #32
I agree completely Puzzledtraveller Mar 2012 #76
It's not apple, it's systemic nadinbrzezinski Mar 2012 #84
True, but only Apple gets this kind of fawning headlines here. Pholus Mar 2012 #91
That is because J Crew or Hilfinger nadinbrzezinski Mar 2012 #92
So my childhood memories were an abberation. That's just depressing... ;) Pholus Mar 2012 #94
From the data nadinbrzezinski Mar 2012 #106
This is why I favor competitive tariffs, as opposed to exorbitantly high ones. Selatius Mar 2012 #34
That tariff sounds like the Fordney–McCumber Tariff of 1922 (the 'scientific tariff') pampango Mar 2012 #87
You keep pushing this war against tariffs but you forget one thing. Zalatix Mar 2012 #121
I would say gross income inequality was due to a lack of market regulation, not tariffs. Selatius Mar 2012 #129
I'm not sure those numbers are accurate. hughee99 Mar 2012 #67
It is a single source, indeed, but playing with the numbers sounds kind of reasonable... Pholus Mar 2012 #69
As long as you keep this to companies. nadinbrzezinski Mar 2012 #81
Yeahto handy hannah Mar 2012 #27
I assume you will now stop posting and using the internet because the machine former9thward Mar 2012 #39
Ahhh, the "let those who are without sin cast the first stone" argument. Pholus Mar 2012 #60
Always good to hear from my I Live To Hate Apple stalker. former9thward Mar 2012 #66
Hehehe. Stalker. You can't argue ANYTHING without name calling. Pholus Mar 2012 #68
If they want to continue to lay claim to being the first viable PC, they should make stuff here. HopeHoops Mar 2012 #31
we should exploit cheap labor, lax environmental laws, and loose tax structures think Mar 2012 #35
I believe response #50 says that that's the case... Pholus Mar 2012 #61
I do have to wonder if answers would differ, in either direction, dmallind Mar 2012 #38
This message was self-deleted by its author Tesha Mar 2012 #46
AKA the "everybody does it so it's okay" argument. Pholus Mar 2012 #64
I have no idea what you think was "shredded" but I doubt it was relevant dmallind Mar 2012 #80
Binary ("either/or") thinking will not work here. Pholus Mar 2012 #89
Umm, patriotism? pscot Mar 2012 #44
This message was self-deleted by its author Tesha Mar 2012 #47
All rights and no responsibilites pscot Mar 2012 #49
This message was self-deleted by its author Tesha Mar 2012 #51
Yup. Just in their nature to be exploitative. Gotta love them for it in fact. Pholus Mar 2012 #62
Because americans should prefer american products. n/t lumberjack_jeff Mar 2012 #45
This message was self-deleted by its author Tesha Mar 2012 #52
They should and they do. lumberjack_jeff Mar 2012 #55
And by your OP argument, don't let the door smack you on the way out... Pholus Mar 2012 #63
OK, fine. Move the company to China and slap a huge fucking import tariff Dreamer Tatum Mar 2012 #56
This message was self-deleted by its author Tesha Mar 2012 #71
Vultures dislike the ethical responsibility of taxes. LanternWaste Mar 2012 #57
This message was self-deleted by its author Tesha Mar 2012 #74
One wonders why they bother with a connection here at all. Oh yeah, lawyers. Pholus Mar 2012 #78
this stood out to me. Sea-Dog Mar 2012 #59
This message was self-deleted by its author Tesha Mar 2012 #75
it would have been useful if u had a arguement. Sea-Dog Mar 2012 #85
This message was self-deleted by its author Tesha Mar 2012 #86
Even by Chinese standards, Foxconn's wages are not considered very good. girl gone mad Mar 2012 #88
sounding like a rich individual that turns the other cheek Sea-Dog Mar 2012 #90
This message was self-deleted by its author Tesha Mar 2012 #93
Your junkheap because advertising makes you buy new stuff.... Pholus Mar 2012 #95
the library Sea-Dog Mar 2012 #99
This message was self-deleted by its author Tesha Mar 2012 #100
As usual, backed into a corner and we see the classy side come out. Pholus Mar 2012 #111
another post of fail. Sea-Dog Mar 2012 #122
This message was self-deleted by its author Tesha Mar 2012 #124
Post removed Post removed Mar 2012 #126
This message was self-deleted by its author Tesha Mar 2012 #128
In a trashbin. Pholus Mar 2012 #141
I say let them move the whole company nadinbrzezinski Mar 2012 #77
I apologize for what I said earlier to you. Pholus Mar 2012 #79
I have been mulling this myself nadinbrzezinski Mar 2012 #82
Shh over here, here are a few other companies doing this nadinbrzezinski Mar 2012 #83
it really stinks fascisthunter Mar 2012 #103
I dunno...Might have something to do with it's an American company? Blue_Tires Mar 2012 #97
Not if it is an American Company fascisthunter Mar 2012 #101
This message was self-deleted by its author Tesha Mar 2012 #105
you asked why... did you expect folks here to somehow ignore facts fascisthunter Mar 2012 #107
This message was self-deleted by its author Tesha Mar 2012 #110
Tone deaf! Tone deaf! Tone deaf! Pholus Mar 2012 #114
Because believe it or not they will come back crying like little kids nadinbrzezinski Mar 2012 #116
I'll tell you why, because basically your question was asked in order to defend Apples's activities. bluesbassman Mar 2012 #117
You asked a deceptive question that ignores Union Scribe Mar 2012 #136
This message was self-deleted by its author Tesha Mar 2012 #140
Why? Because it was, in significant part, built on taxpayer provided infratstructure cali Mar 2012 #104
Oh don't bring THAT up cali... bluesbassman Mar 2012 #118
They can build wherever the hell they like. Just don't expect generosity from the tax man. 2ndAmForComputers Mar 2012 #112
Because they moved out of the US while we were their biggest market, that's why. Zalatix Mar 2012 #119
China's emergence as an economic powerhouse... krispos42 Mar 2012 #120
Heaven knows China's market is closed to America's working class. Zalatix Mar 2012 #123
This message was self-deleted by its author Tesha Mar 2012 #125
Chinese growth compared to "the decline of American Exceptionalism" right Tesha? Pholus Mar 2012 #127
Until fair wages, fair profits and fair trade become the rule, not the exception for the world JCMach1 Mar 2012 #130
This message was self-deleted by its author Tesha Mar 2012 #131
You can't prove THAT with a link. Pholus Mar 2012 #134
500% was hyperbole, but it is no joke with some Chineses products sold in America... JCMach1 Mar 2012 #142
I actually meant the Samsung worship posts..... Pholus Mar 2012 #143
Spam deleted by Ian David (MIR Team) Global Teach-In Mar 2012 #132
This message was self-deleted by its author Tesha Mar 2012 #133
By "thousands" you mean about 2500. Doesn't sound as impressive, does it. Pholus Mar 2012 #135
You're good, but Hannah still managed these kinds of things better. Practice makes perfect! apocalypsehow Mar 2012 #137
This message was self-deleted by its author Tesha Mar 2012 #138
I think they should bring slaves in by ship to make them myself The Straight Story Mar 2012 #144
This message was self-deleted by its author Tesha Mar 2012 #145
This message was self-deleted by its author Tesha Mar 2012 #146
This message was self-deleted by its author Tesha Mar 2012 #147
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»This message was self-del...»Reply #87