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)
15. Of course, he campaigned against and negotiated away most of the high tariffs he inherited
Mon Dec 8, 2014, 02:02 PM
Dec 2014

from Hoover and Coolidge.

I think your quote is a fair assessment of his thoughts on tariffs in 1933. After campaigning against high tariffs in 1932 he introduced the RTAA in 1934 which he used to lower tariffs. The quote may have been an expression of his opinion of how limited they should be - compared to the high tariff levels republicans had enacted - since, in the next, year he started to lower them.

And one could argue that his view of tariffs and trade in general evolved over the course of time. As WWII progressed and he envisioned the post-war world, he seemed committed to multilateral organizations that would play a large role in international affairs. The United Nations was the first, proposed in 1942. Then in 1944 his Bretton Woods conference came up with the IMF, the World Bank and the International Trade Organization ("an international institution for the regulation of trade").

I think his later commitment to multilateral governance of international issues was partly a fear that conservatives would regain power in the US and elsewhere and bring about a return to the same high tariffs and isolationism that Coolidge and Hoover had promoted.

From the Roosevelt Institute: The Next New Deal

The driving force behind this effort was FDR's Secretary of State, Cordell Hull, who considered the passage of Smoot-Hawley an unmitigated disaster. Hull had been arguing in favor of freer trade for decades, both as a Democratic congressman and later senator from Tennessee. Given the long-standing protectionist tendencies of Congress -- which reached their zenith with the passage of Smoot-Hawley, the highest tariff in U.S. history -- Hull faced an uphill struggle to accomplish this task. He also had to overcome FDR's initial reluctance to embrace his ideas, as the president preferred the policies of the "economic nationalists" within his administration during his first year in office. By 1934, however, FDR's attitude began to change, and in March of that year the president threw his support behind Hull's proposed Reciprocal Trade Agreements Act -- a landmark piece of legislation that fundamentally altered the way in which the United States carried out foreign economic policy.

Convinced that the country was not ready for a truly multilateral approach to freer trade, Hull's legislation sought to establish a system of bilateral agreements through which the United States would seek reciprocal reductions in the duties imposed on specific commodities with other interested governments. These reductions would then be generalized by the application of the most-favored-nation principle, with the result that the reduction accorded to a commodity from one country would then be accorded to the same commodity when imported from other countries. Well aware of the lingering resistance to tariff reduction that remained in Congress, Hull insisted that the power to make these agreements must rest with the president alone, without the necessity of submitting them to the Senate for approval. Under the act, the president would be granted the power to decrease or increase existing rates by as much as 50 percent in return for reciprocal trade concessions granted by the other country.

It is also important to note that Hull, like many of his contemporaries, including FDR, regarded protectionism as antithetical to the average worker -- first, because in FDR's view high tariffs shifted the burden of financing the government from the rich to the poor, and secondly, because he believed that high tariffs concentrated wealth in the hands of the industrial elite, who, as a consequence, wielded an undue or even corrupting influence in Washington. As such, both FDR and Hull saw the opening up of the world's economy as a positive measure that would help alleviate global poverty, improve the lives of workers, reduce tensions among nations, and help usher in a new age of peace and prosperity. Indeed, by the time the U.S. entered the war, this conviction had intensified to the point where the two men concluded that the root cause of the war was economic depravity.

The U.S. would also champion the 1944 Bretton Woods Accords, which set up the International Monetary Fund and World Bank, and after the war, the RTAA would go on to serve as the model for the negotiation of the 1947 General Agreement on Tariff and Trade (GATT), the critical institution upon which the modern global economy stands and the precursor to the World Trade Organization (WTO) established in 1995. Hence, it was U.S. reciprocal trade policy -- a policy that had changed little since its inception during the New Deal -- combined with a newfound determination to play a leading role in world affairs, that guided U.S. policymakers in the mid-1940s towards a new post-war international economic order -- an economic order still largely in operation to this day.

http://www.nextnewdeal.net/fdrs-comprehensive-approach-freer-trade

This is the first time I read that the RTAA actually gave FDR the power to unilaterally raise or lower tariffs up to 50% without congressional approval.
Did it work? Did it work? Anyone?... Recursion Dec 2014 #1
Thanks for that astute assessment, Rush. RiverLover Dec 2014 #4
Here's an actual liberal view(which is of course correct). Maybe you can post something from Fox RiverLover Dec 2014 #7
+1 an entire shit load. Enthusiast Dec 2014 #18
Another fail, Recursion. Scuba Dec 2014 #9
+1 You nailed it. Enthusiast Dec 2014 #19
Let's see... in FDR's first term... MannyGoldstein Dec 2014 #10
FDR was right on. Tariffs should protect the living standards of the American worker. Enthusiast Dec 2014 #2
Thank you. JDPriestly Dec 2014 #12
"In FDR's view high tariffs shifted the burden of financing the government from the rich to the poor pampango Dec 2014 #16
Very little of the TPP has anything to do with what tariffs are still existing. djean111 Dec 2014 #3
Good info. Thanks~nt RiverLover Dec 2014 #5
I certainly hope you did not think that with my post I was suggesting that the TPP is just about JDPriestly Dec 2014 #13
K & R Faryn Balyncd Dec 2014 #6
K&R Scuba Dec 2014 #8
as djean notes up above, TPP is much worse than just tariffs Doctor_J Dec 2014 #11
Dr. Dean talked about the need for tariffs when he was running for president Mosby Dec 2014 #14
Of course, he campaigned against and negotiated away most of the high tariffs he inherited pampango Dec 2014 #15
Unfortunately, as our high trade deficit and declining wages prove, even multilateral trade JDPriestly Dec 2014 #17
But the wealth is safely in the hands of the wealthy elite and multinational corporations where Enthusiast Dec 2014 #20
Indeed I believe FDR knew that the elite have prospered under high tariffs and low. The key pampango Dec 2014 #22
You are entitled to your opinion. I'll side with FDR. pampango Dec 2014 #21
The TPP creates international Corporate Supremacy®. Enthusiast Dec 2014 #23
I've posted many times that the TPP is only good if it has strong labor and environmental standards pampango Dec 2014 #24
Yeah, we heard about those mythical strong labor and environmental standards Enthusiast Dec 2014 #25
We are both skeptical about their inclusion in the TPP. pampango Dec 2014 #27
We do not want another trade deal. Period. Enthusiast Dec 2014 #28
That was pretty quick going from "completely abandon any and all trade deals with nations that do pampango Dec 2014 #29
Problem is the GDP does not reflect median income. JDPriestly Dec 2014 #30
Wages declined from the early 1970's to the mid-1990's then increased. A NAFTA tragedy? pampango Dec 2014 #31
Fantastic quote! Thanks! MannyGoldstein Dec 2014 #26
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Thinking about the TPP. ...»Reply #15