Re: Smoot-Hawley Act gleich hier: aber was hat das in diesem Zusammenhang

verfasst von André, 22.11.2003, 15:27

-->für große Bedeutung, die US können doch nicht einseitig gegenüber z.B.
China Zölle erhöhen und wenn generell, dann werden sie selbst am mei0ten zu leiden haben.???


Smoot-Hawley Tariff

The Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act of June 1930 raised U.S. tariffs to historically high levels. The original intention behind the legislation was to increase the protection afforded domestic farmers against foreign agricultural imports. Massive expansion in the agricultural production sector outside of Europe during World War I led, with the postwar recovery of European producers, to massive agricultural overproduction during the 1920s. This in turn led to declining farm prices during the second half of the decade. During the 1928 election campaign, Republican Presidential candidate Herbert Hoover pledged to help the beleaguered farmer by, among other things, raising tariff levels on agricultural products. But once the tariff schedule revision process got started, it proved impossible to stop. Calls for increased protection flooded in from industrial sector special interest groups and soon a bill meant to provide relief for farmers became a means to raise tariffs in all sectors of the economy. When the dust had settled, Congress had agreed to tariff levels that exceeded the already high rates established by the 1922 Fordney-McCumber Act and represented among the most protectionist tariffs in U.S. history.

The Smoot-Hawley Tariff was more a consequence of the onset of the Great Depression than an initial cause. But while the tariff might not have caused the Depression, it certainly did not make it any better. It provoked a storm of foreign retaliatory measures and came to stand as a symbol of the ‘beggar-thy-neighbor’ policies (policies designed to improve one’s own lot at the expense of that of others) of the 1930s. Such policies contributed to a drastic decline in international trade. For example, U.S. imports from Europe declined from a 1929 high of $1,334 million to just $390 million in 1932, while U.S. exports to Europe fell from $2,341 million in 1929 to $784 million in 1932. Overall, world trade declined by some 66% between 1929 and 1934. More generally, Smoot-Hawley did nothing to foster trust and cooperation among nations in either the political or economic realm during a perilous era in international relations.

The Smoot-Hawley tariff represents the high-water mark of U.S. protectionism in the twentieth century. Thereafter, beginning with the 1934 Reciprocal Trade Agreements Act, American commercial policy generally emphasized trade liberalization over protectionism. The United States generally assumed the mantle of champion of freer international trade, as evidenced by its support for the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT), the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), and the World Trade Organization (WTO).

Quelle US Department of State

Thread gesperrt

 

gesamter Thread:

• raus aus Papier-Gold ins Physische: da braut sich etwas zusammen - Emerald, 22.11.2003, 14:41
  • warum soll China ihre US-Treasuries nicht sachte in Gold-Bullion umlenken?(owT) - Emerald, 22.11.2003, 14:43
    • Wegen Smoot-Hawley als Damokles-Waffe der US-Amerikaner. (owT) - El Sheik, 22.11.2003, 14:49
      • Re: Smoot-Hawley Act gleich hier: aber was hat das in diesem Zusammenhang - André, 22.11.2003, 15:27
        • Bushs strategischer Schachzug - El Sheik, 22.11.2003, 16:26
          • Re: Bushs strategischer Schachzug - André, 22.11.2003, 18:01
            • Re: Bushs strategischer Schachzug - Karl52, 22.11.2003, 19:49
          • Er wird wahrscheinlich nicht wiedergewählt - politico, 23.11.2003, 09:23
    • Re: In dieser Beziehung denke ich ähnlich, zumal sich die Handelsbeziehungen... - JLL, 22.11.2003, 16:25
    • das tun sie ja schon, aber im Prinzip ist der Goldmarkt viel zu klein - kingsolomon, 22.11.2003, 17:54
  • Passend dazu die unerwartete plötzliche Hedge Abkehr von Barrick (s.u.) Gruss (owT) - Tofir, 22.11.2003, 15:13
  • Re: So weit, so gut, aber wenn dann alle ihre Gewinne realisieren wollen...? (owT) - Ecki1, 22.11.2003, 17:09
    • Re: Das Problem haben wir aber in jedem Aufwärtstrend, irgendwann muss man raus! (owT) - JLL, 22.11.2003, 17:14
      • Re: So ist es. Also auf Verhältnis Newsflow/Kursbewegung achten - und auf Wellen (owT) - Ecki1, 22.11.2003, 17:31
    • Gewinne in Was??? (owT) - R.Deutsch, 22.11.2003, 17:35
      • Re: am MARKT realisierbarer Warenkorb wäre nicht übel! - Ecki1, 23.11.2003, 11:29
        • Re: am MARKT realisierbarer Warenkorb wäre nicht übel! - Euklid, 23.11.2003, 11:46