Talk:Smoot–Hawley Tariff Act

message: There is something seriously wrong with this page.  It looks to me that it has been vandalized and needs the attention of an editor.  Older versions look more correct to me but the present version has someone I never heard of "signing the bill into law".  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rcallen7 (talk • contribs) 22:49, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: per precedence for laws, the name should be the name of the law, as in Tariff Act of 1930 instead of the Smoot-Hawley, which is a "commonly known as" not official name, after all this is an encyclopaedia.(Lihaas (talk) 15:21, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: page move,

message: From Economic Effects: removed the paragraph until responsible parties fix references:
There is not universal agreement about the effect of the tariff. According to the U.S. Statistical Abstract (when?) , the effective tariff rate was 13.5% in 1929 and 19.8% in 1933 with 63% of all imports being duty-free. From 1821-1900, the U.S. averaged 29.7% effective tariff rates and peaked in 1830 at 57.3% with only 8% of all imports being duty-free, dwarfing the Smoot-Hawley rate. In addition, imports during 1929 were only 4.2% of the United States' GNP and exports were only 5.0%. For monetarist authors (oh yeah? all of them?) who consider the Great Depression an effect of the monetary policy of the Federal Reserve, the Smoot-Hawley's effect on the entire U.S. economy was small compared to monetary policy. By 1937, the effective tariff rate was reduced to 15.6% when the reaction of 1937–1938 occurred, demonstrating no statistical correlation between this economic downturn and tariff levels. Senator Robert L. Owen testified at the hearings on HR 7230, the bill to make the Federal Reserve banks a national property, that "In 1937, when the Federal Reserve Board called upon the banks to raise their reserves to twice what they had been before, there was a contraction of credit of two billion dollars. [credible citation required, previous citation was misleading]  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.119.67.32 (talk) 00:24, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Paragraph needs work

message: I've removed this paragraph:
"Most economists at the time and since agree that it had a negative effect on the economy. After the 1929 stock market crash, unemployment never reached double digits in any of the 12 months following that event, peaking at 9 percent, then drifted downwards until it reached 6.3 percent in June 1930. Then the federal government made its first major intervention in the economy with the Smoot-Hawley tariff. After that intervention the downward movement of unemployment rates reversed and shot up far beyond the level it had reached in the wake of the stock market crash hitting 11.6 percent in November 1930."
Several issues here.  It talks about the opinion of "most economists," but then goes on to make a more general polemic against any form of dirigism.  It may be true that most economists agree that this particular tariff at this particular level at this particular time was a bad idea, but this doesn't mean that they all oppose *any* form of government dirigism ("intervention") in the economy, or for that matter any protective tariff at any level at any time.  Second, the stats about unemployment may be true, but there are quite a number of factors which affect that.  Third, the work cited is a highly POV work.  At any rate this all adds up to a paragraph which is highly POV and largely misleading. -Helvetica (talk) 04:16, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed POV paragraph 

message: According to Rules of origin, the Tariff Act required country-of-origin labeling for many goods.  This article doesn't mention it.  Either this article should, or rules of origin should be corrected.  (My recollection is that there was already labeling rules for at least some imports, and that the rules changed around this time to require "Made in $COUNTRY" rather than the previously acceptable labeling without the words "Made in".)  121a0012 (talk) 20:20, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Labeling 

message: The 1st sentence makes sense. The 2nd sentence might possibly make sense if it had some more context.
U.S. imports decreased 66% from US$4.4 billion (1929) to US$1.5 billion (1933), and exports decreased 61% from US$5.4 billion to US$2.1 billion, both decreases much more than the 50% decrease of the GDP. Thus exports minus imports which is the GDP formula declined from 1 billion to 600 million while GDP was 58.9 billion, a trivial effect on GDP of about 2/3 of 1%.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.80.124.218 (talk) 12:55, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Export versus import re GDP paragraph makes no sense 

message: IP, here's the talk page section.  You need to show it's not a fringe view point, basically by showing that others have expressed this concern and supported this viewpoint.  You also need to substantially rework the phrasing.  Saying that "...scholars ignore..." when it's just one person is a massive POV. Ravensfire (talk) 01:43, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Eckes' view 

message: You allow other undocumented view points in this article yet censor mine. For example: "Both Reed Smoot and Willis Hawley were defeated for reelection in 1932, the controversial tariff being a major factor in their respective losses."
This is absolutely false. As Eckes states, both Smoot and Hawley's defeat in their reelection bids were due to nontariff issues as revealed in local newspapers in Oregon and Utah as quoted in Eckes book.
Need more examples of undocumented disinformation in this article that Wiki editors don't challenge? I have more.
Machinehead61 (talk) 02:12, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Machinehead61's view 

message: Dr. Calzolari has reviewed this Wikipedia page, and provided us with the following comments to improve its quality:
We hope Wikipedians on this talk page can take advantage of these comments and improve the quality of the article accordingly.
We believe Dr. Calzolari has expertise on the topic of this article, since he has published relevant scholarly research:
*Reference : Calzolari, Giacomo & Scarpa, Carlo, 2007. "Footloose Monopolies: Regulating a "National Champion"," CEPR Discussion Papers 6413, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
ExpertIdeasBot (talk) 15:36, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dr. Calzolari's comment on this article 

message: The quote attributed to Irwin in the leading paragraph suggesting the tariffs did not impact the economy seems contrafactual to the article that is quoted.  The elipses seems to do a large amount of water-carrying to push the fringe notion the tariffs did not damage trade.  73.170.156.225 (talk) 19:26, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Quote of  Irwin in leading paragraph seems to be a misquote 

message: This does not fit. 
*JM Keynes did not promote national self-sufficiency: "Having sought to understand and to do full justice to the ideas which underlie the urge felt by so many countries to-day towards greater national self-sufficiency, we have to consider with care whether in practice we are not too easily discarding much of value which the nineteenth century achieved. In those countries where the advocates of national self sufficiency have attained power, it appears to my judgment that, without exception, many foolish things are being done. Mussolini, perhaps, is acquiring wisdom teeth. But Russia to-day exhibits the worst example which the world, perhaps, has ever seen, of administrative incompetence and of the sacrifice of almost everything that makes life worth living to wooden heads. Germany is at the mercy of unchained irresponsibles--though it is too soon to judge her. The Irish Free State, a unit much too small for a high degree of national self-sufficiency except at great economic cost, is discussing plans which might, if they were carried out, be ruinous.".
*A big majority of American Economic Historians agree that protectionism worsend the Great Depression . A statement to the opposite has to be presented carefully especially as a minority position and without creating straw man arguments. --Pass3456 (talk) 18:34, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Pass3456 I saw that you added a POV tag to the Economic_effects section, almost a year ago. The section was presenting an extremely self-contradictory view on the subject. The Whaples ref was convincing in establishing the NPOV position, so made a rather drastic edit cutting the WP:UNDUE contradictory content, and I removed the tag. I thought you should take a look. Alsee (talk) 11:08, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Essay from a [[Marine Le Pen]] fan