-
@ 21seasons
2025-02-03 13:20:27
*For present-day tariff and trade policies are not only as bad as those in the seventeenth, eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, but incomparably worse. The real reasons for those tariffs and other trade barriers are the same, and the pretended reasons are also the same.*
__
An American manufacturer of woolen sweaters goes to Congress or to the State Department and tells the committee or officials concerned that it would be a national disaster for them to remove or reduce the tariff on Canadian sweaters.
He now sells his sweaters for $30 each, but Canadian manufacturers could sell their sweaters of the same quality for $25, A duty of $5, therefore, is needed to keep him in business. He is not thinking of himself, of course, but of the thousand men and women he employs, and of the people to their spending in turn gives employment.
Throw them out of work, and you create unemployment and a fall in purchasing power, which would spread in ever-widening circles! And if he can prove that he really would be forced out of business if the tariff were removed or reduced, his argument against that action is regarded by Congress as conclusive.
FALLACY
But the fallacy comes from looking merely at this manufacturer and his employes, or merely at the American sweater industry. It comes from noticing only the results that are immediately seen, and neglecting the results that are not seen because they are prevented from coming into existence.
Donald Trump and the lobbyists for tariff protection are continually putting forward arguments that are not factually correct. But let us assume that the facts in this case are precisely as the sweater manufacturer has stated them.
Let us assume that a tariff of $5 a sweater is necessary for him to stay in business and provide employment at sweater-making for his workers.
We have deliberately chosen the most unfavorable example of any for the removal of a tariff. We have not taken an argument for the imposition of a new tariff in order to bring a new industry into existence, but an argument for the retention of a tariff that has already brought an industry into existence, and cannot be repealed without hurting somebody.
The tariff is repealed; the manufacturer goes out of business; a thousand workers are laid off; the particular tradesmen whom they patronized are hurt. This is the immediate result that is seen. But there are also results which, while much more difficult to trace, are no less immediate and no less real. For now sweaters that formerly cost retail $30 a piece can be bought for $25. Consumers can now buy the same quality of sweater for less money, or a much better one for the same money.
If they buy the same quality of sweater, they not only get the sweater, but they have $5 left over, which they would not have had under the previous conditions, to buy something else. With the $25 that they pay for the imported sweater they help employment—as the manufacturer no doubt predicted—in the sweater industry in Canada. With the $5 left over they help employment in any number of other industries in the United States.
But the results do not end there. By buying Canadian sweaters they furnish the Canada with US dollars to buy American goods here. This, in fact (if I may here disregard such complications as fluctuating exchange rates, loans, credits, etc.) is the only way in which the Canadians can eventually make use of these dollars.
Because we have permitted the Canada to sell more to us, they are now able to buy more from us. They are, in fact, eventually forced to buy more from us if their dollar balances are not to remain perpetually unused. So as a result of letting in more Canadian goods, we must export more American goods.
And though fewer people are now employed in the American sweater industry, more people are employed—and much more efficiently employed—in, say, the American machine or aircraft-building business. American employment on net balance has not gone down, but American and British production on net balance has gone up.
Labor in each country is more fully employed in doing just those things that it does best, instead of being forced to do things that it does inefficiently or badly. Consumers in both countries are better off. They are able to buy what they want where they can get it cheapest. American consumers are better provided with sweaters, and Canadian consumers are better provided with washing machines and aircraft.
__
This concluded part 1. On the next part we take a look at the matter the other way around, and see the effect of imposing a tariff in the first place.