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
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: This message was self-deleted by its author [View all]pampango
(24,692 posts)87. That tariff sounds like the Fordney–McCumber Tariff of 1922 (the 'scientific tariff')
The FordneyMcCumber 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
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, Smoots Republicans resemble todays Republicans, who put a similar faith in tax cuts.
http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/2/eb6357c0-3d1a-11e0-bbff-00144feabdc0.html#axzz1EaoLpkGn
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 autumns 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
(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 autumns 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
TopBack to the top of the page
AlertAlert this post for a rule violation
ShareGet links to this post
PowersThere are no powers you can use on this post
Cannot edit, recommend, or reply in locked discussions
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
147 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
Good link! I missed that one, though I remember that particular bunch of lobbying!
Pholus
Mar 2012
#8
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
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
With free trade policies currently in place, the answer is most definitely no.
Selatius
Mar 2012
#24
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
I would say gross income inequality was due to a lack of market regulation, not tariffs.
Selatius
Mar 2012
#129
It is a single source, indeed, but playing with the numbers sounds kind of reasonable...
Pholus
Mar 2012
#69
I assume you will now stop posting and using the internet because the machine
former9thward
Mar 2012
#39
If they want to continue to lay claim to being the first viable PC, they should make stuff here.
HopeHoops
Mar 2012
#31
OK, fine. Move the company to China and slap a huge fucking import tariff
Dreamer Tatum
Mar 2012
#56
I'll tell you why, because basically your question was asked in order to defend Apples's activities.
bluesbassman
Mar 2012
#117
Why? Because it was, in significant part, built on taxpayer provided infratstructure
cali
Mar 2012
#104
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
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
500% was hyperbole, but it is no joke with some Chineses products sold in America...
JCMach1
Mar 2012
#142
You're good, but Hannah still managed these kinds of things better. Practice makes perfect!
apocalypsehow
Mar 2012
#137