herr Donald Herbert Hoover Smoot Hawley Trump
In March 2002, President George W. Bush imposed a 30% tariff on Chinese steel. The results were chaotic.
The tariffs boosted the overall prices of steel and cost the U.S. 200,000 jobs in businesses that buy steel, representing $4 billion in lost wages.
http://www.tradepartnership.com/pdf_...02jobstudy.pdf
Quote:
This study employed straight-forward and widely-accepted regression analysis using a variety of price and employment data to maximize the reliability of the results. We found that (bold added):
200,000 Americans lost their jobs to higher steel prices during 2002. These lost jobs represent approximately $4 billion ($5.5 billion in todays dollars) in lost wages from February to November 2002.
One out of four (50,000) of these job losses occurred in the metal manufacturing, machinery and equipment and transportation equipment and parts sectors.
Job losses escalated steadily over 2002, peaking in November (at 202,000 jobs), and slightly declining to 197,000 jobs in December.
More American workers lost their jobs in 2002 to higher steel prices than the total number employed by the U.S. steel industry itself (187,500 Americans were employed by U.S. steel producers in December 2002).
Every U.S. state experienced employment losses from higher steel costs, with the highest losses occurring in California (19,392 jobs lost), Texas (15,826 jobs lost), Ohio (10,553 jobs lost), Michigan (9,829 jobs lost), Illinois (9,621 jobs lost), Pennsylvania (8,400 jobs lost), New York (8,901 jobs lost) and Florida (8,370 jobs lost). Sixteen states lost at least 4,500 steel consuming jobs each over the course of 2002 from higher steel prices.
The analysis shows that American steel consumers have borne heavy costs from higher steel prices caused by shortages, tariffs and trade remedy duties, among other factors. Some customers of steel consumers have moved sourcing offshore as U.S. producers of steel-containing products became less reliable and more expensive. Other customers refused to accept higher prices from their suppliers and forced them to absorb the higher steel costs, which put many in a precarious (or worse) financial condition. The impact on steel-consuming industries has been significant.
The costs of protectionism always outweigh the benefits, and the jobs lost always outweigh the jobs saved, and that net loss of economic value is also reflected in stock market values ...the losses in market value suffered broadly by steel using industries outweighed the concentrated gains to the firms in the protected industry.
This model also held true when Reagan imposed tariffs to protect Harley Davidson. It is too early to gage the impact of Trump's silly tariffs on Canadian lumber and paper .One
small company in Washington state, Northern Pacific Paper, pushed for the paper tariffs . It employs 260 workers.
A Canadian company that employs 2,500 Americans will be hit by both the lumber and paper tariffs. There is the logic of protectionism in a nut shell. Trump argues that the steel tariffs are a national security concern . But that argument falls on it's face when you consider that American industry uses 70% US steel ,and a good part of the balance is supplied by allies .
All his steel tariffs will do is drive the cost of the raw materials used in industries like ......oh let's say the CONSTRUCTION industry ...of which Trump is allegedly a captain of . . go figure .
