Evening star., 1949-07-04
Protective Tariffs Blamed
For Lowered Standards of Living

To the Editor of The Star:
The idea of any country employing pro-
tective tariffs in international trade GER
tainly seems to be detrimental to labor, in
dustry and the country itself.
Labor. Of course, is very much in favor
OF such tariffs as means OF protecting it
self from cheap labor. Industry on the other
hand desires them for the purpose of pro-
tecting itself. thus enabling it to retain its
higher profits. They are both short sighted
attitudes. even though perfectly understand
able from their individual view points. New
ertheless. from vantage points outside the
realm Of industry and labor, it becomes OBJ
vious that the whole concept Of tariffs is
either poorly understood or purposely
maintained for selfish personal reasons.
1t is strange to see our industry advocate
such tariffs, since believers in free center
prise advocate competition as the best means
to reach perfection and a high standard of
living. Why are they so inconsistent in
this case? Here they cry for protection
against competition and unwittingly or
otherwise ask the people of our Nation to
give them the special privilege of producing
goods at higher cost than that for which
they could be obtained elsewhere. Why
should the people consider it? To do so is
to depress our own living standards. 1t only
benefits industry by permitting it to main
tain high prices and high profits.
Labor, Of course, being at least as obtuse
or as personally selfish as industry, sees only
the threat of competing with cheaper labor
from other countries. 1t feels that by COM
peting with the Chinese laborer. for ex.
ample. 1t will be forced to his level of ex-
istence:
Neither view is correct. For every dollar
saved by buying from foreign competition,
NUN Huir or ND I'd k%o tv,or
by exactly that amount. 1t can be no other
way. it is an outright gift to us as whole.
True, the laborer who Is displaced. and
the industry that must either curtail or
cease operations IS hurt-but only tempo
rarily. Both parties should be absorbed by
our economy into more productive capaci-
ties for it is obvious that their operations
had been expensive and inefficient since they
could not produce as cheaply as someone
else. This should be the opportunity in a
dynamic economy to use their efforts in an
other direction, which should result in bene-
fit to Us all. Even assuming there was no
enterprise left in which to enter. in other
words suppose q static economy existed, the
result would still be to increase our living
standard, for 1t would be necessary only to
reshufle the existing jobs among the dis
placed laborers and thus achieve shorter
working hours for the same wages. There
Is no sense in working purely for works sake!
Further, In view Of President Trumans
Point -Four. this would benefit the country
and people from whom we would be buying.
They would have found 4 market, receive
payment in money or goods and their own
living standards would be enhanced. That
Is the only way, or certainly the best way,
that such countries could be aided-by per-
mitting everyone in the world to do what
he can do best and cheapest. To do other
wise is like business that makes gold from
lead--the resulting gold having cost 500
an ounce to produce as against maximum
value of natural gold at $35 an ounce. It
makes no more sense than that. Let US open
the entire world to free trade If We believe
in free-enterprise-we1l all benefit in the
long run. VIM. H. REYNOLDS.