It Really IS the 1930s All over Again
1,028 leading economists have taken out an ad in the Wall Street Journal to oppose anti-China trade protectionism now before Congress. They style their effort as a reprise of the 1930 petition sent by a similar number of economists to President Herbert Hoover urging him to veto the Smoot-Hawley Tariff bill, which he went on to sign anyway.
Not too long ago, a huge number of economists signed a list advocating passage of the Minimum-Wage hike then before Congress (they passed it, and the minimum wage is higher now).
So, what's with these long lists of economists, anyway? Their scores so far: Smoot-Hawley: lost; Minimum Wage: won; China - not yet decided. I guess I'm on their side THIS time.
Comments (8)
Mathieu Bédard
Hey, that's still a better score than Al Gore's "wide scientific consensus"..
Published: August 1, 2007 4:58 PM
Quenton
I see Walter Williams on the list, but I wonder why I don't see Thomas Sowell. That's a bit puzzling considering he is usually one of the most vocal economists when it comes to opposing trade restrictions.
Published: August 1, 2007 5:16 PM
John Payne
I think the minimum wage ad only had 600+ economists sign on to it, so this one has substantially more backing. Unfortunately, I don't think most members of Congress really care what economists say; they just go with what's politically popular.
Published: August 1, 2007 7:12 PM
nick gray
If we really are replaying the 1930s, let's get it right! We tell the Japs to pull their tentacles in, tell the Germans they have enough living room, and tell all the fascists to let the Jews emigrate!
And nobody plays round with that uranium stuff, either!
Published: August 1, 2007 9:53 PM
Protectionism, the wealth killer.
Every tariff the US passes starts an era of recession or war or both. These tariffs against China and soon to be against India, Pakistan, Bangeldesh and Indoniesa will only impoverish the poorest US consumers, hurt the rest and bankrupt the most dynamic companies who happen to be the biggest exporters.
Published: August 1, 2007 10:15 PM
david
this recalls an exchange from the intelligent design/evolution adversity.
I cent remember the exact details, but after the ID lobby issued a statement signed by 100 pro-ID 'scientists', some irate orthodox biologists got together and proposed issuing a counter-statement signed by 200 of them. This idea was rejected on the grounds that 'since when have scientific questions been decided by plebiscite?'.
Anyway, they came up with a better plan. Since it was shortly after the death of Stephen Jay Gould, they decided to issue a counter-statement that doubled as a sort of tribute to his life, and THAT statement was signed off by 200 biologists - but only those named Steve.
Published: August 2, 2007 1:21 PM
Ray G
I'll boldy state the obvious, and alreayd implied; the economists' efforts made no difference whatsoever.
A politician or two might have used a petition or a particular name to lend credibility to their nonsense, but at the end of the day, populism rules.
Published: August 2, 2007 5:37 PM
happylee
The average elitist in the 1920's thought there were too many human beings around. A little famine and warfare helpfully thinned the ranks. Today, the average elitist thinks there are too many human being around. A little famine and warfare will helpfully thin the ranks. In the end, I think what motivates the dark souls of the kinds of people who rise to power is not human happiness or prosperity but human suffering and poverty. To this end, a couple of tariffs here, a tax increase there, a provocation of a foreign gov't over there and a massive new layer of anti-carbon rules will help thin the ranks. As Hoppe might say, they are all evil. Period.
Published: August 2, 2007 8:49 PM