b********n
发帖数: 38600 | 1 特朗普政府对中国和我们的贸易伙伴持续发出的威胁和施加的关税可能导致上世纪颁布
的《斯穆特-霍利关税法》重演，该法案加速了世界贸易体系的崩溃并带来了大萧条。
那一次，美国打响并输掉了一场贸易战。
（斯姆特-霍利关税法案（The Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act）于1930年6月17日经赫伯特
·胡佛总统签署成为法律，该法案将20000多种的进口商品的关税提升到历史最高水平
。当时在美国，有1028名经济学家签署了一项请愿书抵制该法案；而在该法案通过之后
，许多国家对美国采取了报复性关税措施，使美国的进口额和出口额都骤降50%以上。
一些经济学家认为，斯姆特-霍利法案是导致美欧之间贸易规模从1929年的历史高位急
遽衰退到1932年历史低位的催化剂——这次衰退伴随着的是大萧条的开始 - 维基百科）
老川说中国现在类似1929大萧条，殊不知美国随后推出的这个与他当今类似的加税，更
把美国推向深渊。
Commentary: Reduce China trade deficit by exporting more, not piling on more
tariffs
The Trump administration's anti-trade actions, intended to radically shake
up world trade, may be having unintended consequences.
Is it lowering the trade deficit? No.
Is it bringing manufacturing jobs back to America? No.
Is it helping or hurting the U.S. economy? Look at the facts.
Are we heading for a trade war involving the world's two largest economies?
Yes.
The president has no clue, or is dismissive, of the fact that it is U.S.
importers who pay the tariffs, which they must absorb or pass on to the
retailers and end-users (manufacturers). Ultimately, it's something of a 10
to 25 percent tax on U.S. consumers. China's predictable retaliation has
alarmed American producers who are increasingly dependent on foreign markets.
Yes, the trade deficit is an issue and should be addressed, but arbitrarily
imposing punishing tariffs on China and our trade partners is not the
solution. What is the solution? It's exporting more, not importing less. Our
major competitors China, Japan, Germany all have ambitious government
programs that give their exporters an advantage in this increasingly
competitive global economy. The U.S., by comparison, is so preoccupied with
limiting imports that there is little or no attention given to boosting
exports.
In Congress, I chaired the House Foreign Affairs Committee Subcommittee on
International Economic Policy and Trade. I got a call from President Ronald
Reagan's Secretary of Commerce, Malcom Baldridge, who invited me to
breakfast to talk about trade. The next week, entering his office, I was
struck by the memorabilia, including a saddle, displaying his hobby of
competing in rodeos.
Yes, we had a shared concern about the trade deficit. The question was how
could we work together to solve the problem. As we sat down to devour our
scrambled eggs and hash browns, he asked about upgrading the commercial
attaches in U.S. embassies, whose task was to assist American businesses
seeking markets or investments in foreign countries. My response was, "yes,
I can include that in the next authorization bill."
At our next breakfast, Secretary Baldrige shared his thoughts about the 20,
000 American companies that were competitive but had difficulty pursuing
foreign markets. Unlike America's large corporations with global outlets,
many of the export-shy, midsize companies needed to collaborate without
violating antitrust laws to market and ship their products into foreign
markets. We agreed to work together on legislation that would allow these
small and medium size companies to be more competitive internationally,
which led to enactment of the Export Trading Company Act. Reagan signed it
into law at the Long Beach, California, port on Oct. 2, 1982
Eventually we turned to the larger question. Why doesn't our government
match what other countries have been doing for years, adopting global
strategies, backed by ambitious programs to insure their companies get a
larger share of the world market. Secretary Baldrige felt our executive
branch was dysfunctional, with trade agencies acting more like fiefdoms
despite their respective mandates to help U.S. exporters. No global strategy
, no coherence, just cherry picking for the few midsize companies looking
for guidance and support.
We agreed something needed to be done. His Commerce Department drafted
legislation to reorganize the federal government that brought the trade
agencies under one umbrella and added new mandates to assist American
companies so they could be more competitive, which I introduced on Nov. 17,
1983. A Ronald Reagan Republican and a Democrat congressman working closely
together made good things happen.
Our government needs to make exporting a much higher calling to at least
match what other countries are doing that has put U.S. companies at a
disadvantage in today's global marketplace.
The Trump administration's continued threats and tariffs on China and our
trading partners may lead to the repeat of the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act,
enacted in 1928, that precipitated collapse of the world trading system and
led to the Great Depression. A trade war America started and lost.
ABOUT THE WRITER
Don Bonker is a former Democratic congressman from Washington state. He
wrote this for the Seattle Times.
http://www.latimes.com/sns-tns-bc-uschina-trade-commentary-20181019-story.html
https://www.seattletimes.com/opinion/reduce-china-trade-deficit-by-exporting
-more-not-piling-on-more-tariffs/ | c****o
发帖数: 32446 | 2 Trump: trade war easy win | c*c
发帖数: 2983 | 3 看看caterpillar和harley今年自由落体式的股价，就知道这trade war是不是easy to
win了
caterpillar， deere最好在裁个几千个人的，MAGA就在眼前 |
|
