President Taft on Free Traders: More on the Case for Protective Tariffs

[mikegriffith1]

While defending the Payne-Aldrich Tariff Act of 1909, which left America's protectionist trade policy about 95% intact, President William Howard Taft, a Republican, made a statement about the free traders of his day that applies to most free traders today:

A free trader is opposed to any protected rate because be thinks that our manufacturers, our farmers, and our miners ought to withstand the competition of foreign manufacturers and miners and farmers, or else go out of business and find something else more profitable to do. (William Howard Taft: Address on the Tariff Law of 1909)​

Taft was following in the footsteps of George Washington and Alexander Hamilton, among others. From The American Conservative:

The second bill signed by President Washington was the Tariff Act of 1789. Said the Founding Father of his country in his first address to Congress: “A free people … should promote such manufactures as tend to make them independent on others for essential, particularly military supplies.”

In his 1791 “Report on Manufactures,” Alexander Hamilton wrote, “Every nation ought to endeavor to possess within itself all the essentials of national supply. These comprise the means of subsistence, habitat, clothing and defence.”

This was wisdom born of experience. (Globalists vs. Nationalists: Who Owns the Future?)​

When the Republican Party emerged from the ashes of the Federalist and Whig parties in the 1850s, protecting American industries and workers with high tariffs was a key tenet of the party:

In order to successfully carry out his protectionist agenda, Trump must override the elite consensus on free trade. This consensus arose in the aftermath of World War II, when Washington officials unanimously agreed that free trade would create the conditions for lasting peace and economic prosperity. Prior to this time, however, the American political establishment was divided on the issue of free trade, with Republicans calling for higher tariffs and Democrats calling for the lowering or elimination of import duties. Supporting Republicans in their campaign for protectionism were economists, businessmen, and journalists of high social standing and considerable political influence. (Protectionism is Actually a Republican Idea)​

When you see traditional liberal organs like the Washington Post and the New York Times joining Establishment conservative organs like the Wall Street Journal and National Review attacking high tariffs, you should know that something is wrong and that there must be something good about high tariffs. Here's a great pro-tariff editorial from the Toledo Blade in Toledo, Ohio:

Steel has a champion

 

[Harpy Eagle]

While defending the Payne-Aldrich Tariff Act of 1909, which left America's protectionist trade policy about 95% intact, President William Howard Taft, a Republican, made a statement about the free traders of his day that applies to most free traders today:

A free trader is opposed to any protected rate because be thinks that our manufacturers, our farmers, and our miners ought to withstand the competition of foreign manufacturers and miners and farmers, or else go out of business and find something else more profitable to do. (William Howard Taft: Address on the Tariff Law of 1909)​

Taft was following in the footsteps of George Washington and Alexander Hamilton, among others. From The American Conservative:

The second bill signed by President Washington was the Tariff Act of 1789. Said the Founding Father of his country in his first address to Congress: “A free people … should promote such manufactures as tend to make them independent on others for essential, particularly military supplies.”

In his 1791 “Report on Manufactures,” Alexander Hamilton wrote, “Every nation ought to endeavor to possess within itself all the essentials of national supply. These comprise the means of subsistence, habitat, clothing and defence.”

This was wisdom born of experience. (Globalists vs. Nationalists: Who Owns the Future?)​

When the Republican Party emerged from the ashes of the Federalist and Whig parties in the 1850s, protecting American industries and workers with high tariffs was a key tenet of the party:

In order to successfully carry out his protectionist agenda, Trump must override the elite consensus on free trade. This consensus arose in the aftermath of World War II, when Washington officials unanimously agreed that free trade would create the conditions for lasting peace and economic prosperity. Prior to this time, however, the American political establishment was divided on the issue of free trade, with Republicans calling for higher tariffs and Democrats calling for the lowering or elimination of import duties. Supporting Republicans in their campaign for protectionism were economists, businessmen, and journalists of high social standing and considerable political influence. (Protectionism is Actually a Republican Idea)​

When you see traditional liberal organs like the Washington Post and the New York Times joining Establishment conservative organs like the Wall Street Journal and National Review attacking high tariffs, you should know that something is wrong and that there must be something good about high tariffs. Here's a great pro-tariff editorial from the Toledo Blade in Toledo, Ohio:

Steel has a champion

Well if it worked in the 1700s there is no reason it will not work now!

Fuck you people are desperate.

 

[WheelieAddict]

Isn't Taft the fat oversize bathtub guy that didn't accomplish much?

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Isn't Taft the fat oversize bathtub guy that didn't accomplish much?

That's the guy. The only POTUS to be fatter than the one we have now

 

[WheelieAddict]

Isn't Taft the fat oversize bathtub guy that didn't accomplish much?

That's the guy. The only POTUS to be fatter than the one we have now

Yeah Trump is a bit chubby. He golfs though "keeps healthy" so I don't think he ever approaches Taft's legendary waistline.

 

[Rambunctious]

I can't find a single nation in the world that does not impose terriffs on the United States....so why do we see people admonishing Trump for imposing them? Are these people foreign agents or what?
Whats good for the goose is good for the gander....

 

[Norman]

The issue is that the capital will move away from country. Yes great there will be more jobs... in China. Who wants to move?

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Isn't Taft the fat oversize bathtub guy that didn't accomplish much?

That's the guy. The only POTUS to be fatter than the one we have now

Yeah Trump is a bit chubby. He golfs though "keeps healthy" so I don't think he ever approaches Taft's legendary waistline.

There is no much "healthy" to riding in a cart, getting out, hitting a ball and getting back into the cart.

 

[edthecynic]

When you see traditional liberal organs like the Washington Post and the New York Times joining Establishment conservative organs like the Wall Street Journal and National Review attacking high tariffs, you should know that something is wrong and that there must be something good about high tariffs.

There is NOTHING good about tariffs, they violate the Law of Comparative Advantage and in the long run only hurt the country that imposes them. Tramp's "logic" is if other countries are screwing themselves with tariffs, America should screw herself more.

 

[my2¢]

Eliminate the income tax and I'll jump on board with tariffs.

 

[usmbguest5318]

While defending the Payne-Aldrich Tariff Act of 1909, which left America's protectionist trade policy about 95% intact, President William Howard Taft, a Republican, made a statement about the free traders of his day that applies to most free traders today:

A free trader is opposed to any protected rate because be thinks that our manufacturers, our farmers, and our miners ought to withstand the competition of foreign manufacturers and miners and farmers, or else go out of business and find something else more profitable to do. (William Howard Taft: Address on the Tariff Law of 1909)​

Taft was following in the footsteps of George Washington and Alexander Hamilton, among others. From The American Conservative:

The second bill signed by President Washington was the Tariff Act of 1789. Said the Founding Father of his country in his first address to Congress: “A free people … should promote such manufactures as tend to make them independent on others for essential, particularly military supplies.”

In his 1791 “Report on Manufactures,” Alexander Hamilton wrote, “Every nation ought to endeavor to possess within itself all the essentials of national supply. These comprise the means of subsistence, habitat, clothing and defence.”

This was wisdom born of experience. (Globalists vs. Nationalists: Who Owns the Future?)​

When the Republican Party emerged from the ashes of the Federalist and Whig parties in the 1850s, protecting American industries and workers with high tariffs was a key tenet of the party:

In order to successfully carry out his protectionist agenda, Trump must override the elite consensus on free trade. This consensus arose in the aftermath of World War II, when Washington officials unanimously agreed that free trade would create the conditions for lasting peace and economic prosperity. Prior to this time, however, the American political establishment was divided on the issue of free trade, with Republicans calling for higher tariffs and Democrats calling for the lowering or elimination of import duties. Supporting Republicans in their campaign for protectionism were economists, businessmen, and journalists of high social standing and considerable political influence. (Protectionism is Actually a Republican Idea)​

When you see traditional liberal organs like the Washington Post and the New York Times joining Establishment conservative organs like the Wall Street Journal and National Review attacking high tariffs, you should know that something is wrong and that there must be something good about high tariffs. Here's a great pro-tariff editorial from the Toledo Blade in Toledo, Ohio:

Steel has a champion

President William Howard Taft, a Republican, made a statement about the free traders of his day that applies to most free traders today:

A free trader is opposed to any protected rate because be thinks that our manufacturers, our farmers, and our miners ought to withstand the competition of foreign manufacturers and miners and farmers, or else go out of business and find something else more profitable to do. (William Howard Taft: Address on the Tariff Law of 1909)

While I cannot attest to the accuracy of whether "most free traders of today" support free trade for the reason Taft noted, I can attest to why people having in depth knowledge of how trade works do so. They do so because empirical analysis of free trade vs. restricted trade has shown that free trade produces greater net returns than does restricted trade. The net returns derive mostly from lower production costs and lower prices.

• The Impact of Trade Agreements: New Approach, New Insights
  
• The Dynamic Effects of Trade Liberalization: An Empirical Analysis
  
• An Empirical Assessment of the Comparative Advantage Gains from Trade
  
• Trade Policy, Growth, and Income Distribution
  
• Tariffs and Growth: An Empirical Exploration of Contingent Relationships
  
• The Structure of Tariffs and Long-Term Growth -- If one reads this document, one will have also to leearn about optimal tariffs because the tacit founding notion underpinning this study is that there is, for economically large countries participating in a given market/industry, such a thing as an optimal tariff. I provided a summary discussion of optimal tariffs and links to some such papers here -- Rip up NAFTA, apply 15-20% border tariff and 10's of thousands of jobs will be recovered from Canada -- and here -- Trump says he has his pick of the top ten people in any discipline. Here are a few more references on the matter of optimal tariffs:
  • OPTIMAL TARIFFS FOR A LARGE AND A SMALL COUNTRY UNDER UNCERTAIN TERMS OF TRADE
  • Liberalizing Trade between Large and Small: The Welfare from Three Different Strategies
    
  • TRADE, GROWTH AND THE SIZE OF COUNTRIES

What is so now as it was in Taft's day is that even as free trade creates economic net gains for a country on the whole, the associated distributional implications can undermine the political viability of free trade. (Lake and Millimet) We find ourselves again in a period where free trade animates much public policy discourse, not only in the halls of trade representatives, economic policy institutes/agencies, other governmental units, and academia, but also among the general public. That's all well and good; however, few members of the general public are willing to consume the empirical findings that show that implementing restrictive trade policies will, overall, disserve them and the nation.

The second bill signed by President Washington was the Tariff Act of 1789. Said the Founding Father of his country in his first address to Congress: “A free people … should promote such manufactures as tend to make them independent on others for essential, particularly military supplies.”

Washington, like anyone, could propose any normative economic position [1] that suited him. Too, Washington lacked access to the empirical research that has shown that regardless of one's moral stance on the matter of trade, there is no quantifiable basis for thinking a nation is (outside the realm of optimal tariffs) better off by implementing trade restrictions. Accordingly, one cannot hold against Washington (or Taft, for that matter, for he too lacked the same information) what he thought about the merit of free vs. restricted trade and the means by which a nation can most efficaciously develop/grown its fortunes. The same exculpation cannot be bestowed upon anyone having Internet access.

Imperfect information notwithstanding, the U.S. during both Taft's and Washington's times was not the globally dominant powerhouse it today is. While common knowledge cites the end of WWII as the proximate point at which the U.S. achieved "large country" economic status, some careful observers make the case that it did so in 1916. Pick whichever time one prefers; neither Taft nor Washington, even were they to have implemented optimal tariffs, could have obtained the economic net gains that result from optimal tariffs because such things apply only to "large countries," which the U.S. then was not. The U.S. was in Taft's day a player, so to speak, but not a big enough one to have a controlling, "market making," influence on the economic behavior of everyone else in the market.

Consequently, while it's nifty to cite Taft, Washington and other past presidents, the contextual incongruity between their America and ours makes their remarks inapt as guides for current economic policy.


Note:

1. 
   

In his 1791 “Report on Manufactures,” Alexander Hamilton wrote, “Every nation ought to endeavor to possess within itself all the essentials of national supply. These comprise the means of subsistence, habitat, clothing and defence.”

(See remarks above re: Washington and Taft.)

[Hamilton's, Washington's and Taft's expositions were] wisdom born of experience. (Globalists vs. Nationalists: Who Owns the Future?)

No, they was not. They were normative and based, at best, on anecdotal observations. Quite simply, none of them had the computational tools to perform the empirical analysis that only in the past score to forty years years have shown empirically the economic superiority of free trade over restricted trade.

When you see traditional liberal organs like the Washington Post and the New York Times joining Establishment conservative organs like the Wall Street Journal and National Review attacking high tariffs, you should know that something is wrong and that there must be something good about high tariffs.

 

[mikegriffith1]

While defending the Payne-Aldrich Tariff Act of 1909, which left America's protectionist trade policy about 95% intact, President William Howard Taft, a Republican, made a statement about the free traders of his day that applies to most free traders today:

A free trader is opposed to any protected rate because be thinks that our manufacturers, our farmers, and our miners ought to withstand the competition of foreign manufacturers and miners and farmers, or else go out of business and find something else more profitable to do. (William Howard Taft: Address on the Tariff Law of 1909)​

Taft was following in the footsteps of George Washington and Alexander Hamilton, among others. From The American Conservative:

The second bill signed by President Washington was the Tariff Act of 1789. Said the Founding Father of his country in his first address to Congress: “A free people … should promote such manufactures as tend to make them independent on others for essential, particularly military supplies.”

In his 1791 “Report on Manufactures,” Alexander Hamilton wrote, “Every nation ought to endeavor to possess within itself all the essentials of national supply. These comprise the means of subsistence, habitat, clothing and defence.”

This was wisdom born of experience. (Globalists vs. Nationalists: Who Owns the Future?)​

When the Republican Party emerged from the ashes of the Federalist and Whig parties in the 1850s, protecting American industries and workers with high tariffs was a key tenet of the party:

In order to successfully carry out his protectionist agenda, Trump must override the elite consensus on free trade. This consensus arose in the aftermath of World War II, when Washington officials unanimously agreed that free trade would create the conditions for lasting peace and economic prosperity. Prior to this time, however, the American political establishment was divided on the issue of free trade, with Republicans calling for higher tariffs and Democrats calling for the lowering or elimination of import duties. Supporting Republicans in their campaign for protectionism were economists, businessmen, and journalists of high social standing and considerable political influence. (Protectionism is Actually a Republican Idea)​

When you see traditional liberal organs like the Washington Post and the New York Times joining Establishment conservative organs like the Wall Street Journal and National Review attacking high tariffs, you should know that something is wrong and that there must be something good about high tariffs. Here's a great pro-tariff editorial from the Toledo Blade in Toledo, Ohio:

Steel has a champion

Well if it worked in the 1700s there is no reason it will not work now!

Fuck you people are desperate.

It also worked in the 1800s and much of the 1900s, and it is still working very well for China. Oh, yes, there were a few recessions in those eras, but they were not caused by trade policy.

 

[mikegriffith1]

When you see traditional liberal organs like the Washington Post and the New York Times joining Establishment conservative organs like the Wall Street Journal and National Review attacking high tariffs, you should know that something is wrong and that there must be something good about high tariffs.

There is NOTHING good about tariffs, they violate the Law of Comparative Advantage and in the long run only hurt the country that imposes them. Tramp's "logic" is if other countries are screwing themselves with tariffs, America should screw herself more.

If there's nothing good about tariffs, then how do you explain the fact that America become an economic and industrial giant when high tariffs were in place? How do explain China's enormous economic expansion while China has been following, and still is following, a fiercely high-tariff trade policy? Oh, yes, there are plenty of "studies" that support so-called "free trade," but there is no getting around the fact that America flourished for decades when we had high tariffs, and that other nations have done very well by protecting their industries and jobs with high tariffs.

I'm still waiting for you or anyone else to explain how an American factory is supposed to compete with a foreign factory that can pay its workers dirt wages and that faces virtually no regulatory costs, or with a foreign factory that is heavily subsidized by its government.

Yes, indeed, with free trade, the prices on many items will be cheaper--but at what cost to the overall economy? Yeah, sure, shirts made in sweat shops overseas and shipped here in bulk will be cheaper than shirts made in American factories. But it's not like the American-made shirts are outrageously priced; they're not. It's just that the American factories that make those Made in America shirts pay their workers good wages with benefits and have to provide a safe and clean working, whereas the foreign factories that make the cheaper shirts pay their workers dirt wages with few or no benefits and face few if any regulatory costs. The American-made shirts are reasonably priced, but they're not as cheap as the foreign-made shirts because the foreign-made shirts were made with much lower labor and regulatory costs and/or with heavily subsidized labor and regulatory costs.

 

[edthecynic]

When you see traditional liberal organs like the Washington Post and the New York Times joining Establishment conservative organs like the Wall Street Journal and National Review attacking high tariffs, you should know that something is wrong and that there must be something good about high tariffs.

There is NOTHING good about tariffs, they violate the Law of Comparative Advantage and in the long run only hurt the country that imposes them. Tramp's "logic" is if other countries are screwing themselves with tariffs, America should screw herself more.

If there's nothing good about tariffs, then how do you explain the fact that America become an economic and industrial giant when high tariffs were in place? How do explain China's enormous economic expansion while China has been following, and still is following, a fiercely high-tariff trade policy? Oh, yes, there are plenty of "studies" that support so-called "free trade," but there is no getting around the fact that America flourished for decades when we had high tariffs, and that other nations have done very well by protecting their industries and jobs with high tariffs.

I'm still waiting for you or anyone else to explain how an American factory is supposed to compete with a foreign factory that can pay its workers dirt wages and that faces virtually no regulatory costs, or with a foreign factory that is heavily subsidized by its government.

Yes, indeed, with free trade, the prices on many items will be cheaper--but at what cost to the overall economy? Yeah, sure, shirts made in sweat shops overseas and shipped here in bulk will be cheaper than shirts made in American factories. But it's not like the American-made shirts are outrageously priced; they're not. It's just that the American factories that make those Made in America shirts pay their workers good wages with benefits and have to provide a safe and clean working, whereas the foreign factories that make the cheaper shirts pay their workers dirt wages with few or no benefits and face few if any regulatory costs. The American-made shirts are reasonably priced, but they're not as cheap as the foreign-made shirts because the foreign-made shirts were made with much lower labor and regulatory costs and/or with heavily subsidized labor and regulatory costs.

You need to learn the Law of Comparative Advantage and all your questions will be answered and mathematically proven.

 

[mikegriffith1]

You need to learn the Law of Comparative Advantage and all your questions will be answered and mathematically proven.

And you need to learn some history. Again, as can be readily verified, America grew into a world economic powerhouse behind the protection of high tariffs.

The Toledo, Ohio, newspaper The Blade recently framed the matter superbly:

The proposition before us is not whether the U.S. should launch a trade war, but whether the U.S. ought to defend itself in trade as it would in the case of military aggression. Fair trade, and rough parity in trade, is not a retreat from the global economy. It is an insistence that, when another player engages in foul or unfair play with the United States, we will respond.

Why should Americans pay a much higher tariff on a British or German car than a Brit or German pays on Ford, for example? How is insistence on reciprocity an act of war?

In the case of steel, the Chinese government has been subsidizing the over-production of steel, and then flooding the world, particularly the U.S. market, for years. It has been doing so for no other purpose than to put American steel makers — and, thus, workers in Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Indiana — out of business. That is the act of aggression. The trade war did not start here. (Steel has a champion)​

 

[edthecynic]

You need to learn the Law of Comparative Advantage and all your questions will be answered and mathematically proven.

And you need to learn some history. Again, as can be readily verified, America grew into a world economic powerhouse behind the protection of high tariffs.

The Toledo, Ohio, newspaper The Blade recently framed the matter superbly:

The proposition before us is not whether the U.S. should launch a trade war, but whether the U.S. ought to defend itself in trade as it would in the case of military aggression. Fair trade, and rough parity in trade, is not a retreat from the global economy. It is an insistence that, when another player engages in foul or unfair play with the United States, we will respond.

Why should Americans pay a much higher tariff on a British or German car than a Brit or German pays on Ford, for example? How is insistence on reciprocity an act of war?

In the case of steel, the Chinese government has been subsidizing the over-production of steel, and then flooding the world, particularly the U.S. market, for years. It has been doing so for no other purpose than to put American steel makers — and, thus, workers in Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Indiana — out of business. That is the act of aggression. The trade war did not start here. (Steel has a champion)​

Again, you need to LEARN about the Law of Comparative Advantage. Whatever growth that was had IN SPITE of tariffs would have been greater had they obeyed the Law of Comparative Advantage. In proving the Law one example MATHEMATICALLY compares the advantage of not putting a tariff on goods even if the other country does and if both countries impose tariffs. No tariffs has the greater advantage even if the other country imposes tariffs. The MATH proves it, so as great as the growth might have been with tariffs in the past, the growth would have been BETTER without them, the math is unassailable.

 

[edthecynic]

In the case of steel, the Chinese government has been subsidizing the over-production of steel, and then flooding the world, particularly the U.S. market, for years. It has been doing so for no other purpose than to put American steel makers — and, thus, workers in Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Indiana — out of business.

And that takes its toll on the Chinese economy and cannot be sustained forever. As soon as their economy can no longer afford to subsidize their steel industry, it will not be able to compete and the US steel makers will come back on line.

The smart country will sit back and wait and let the Chinese damage their own economy. The smart country will produce what it makes most efficiently and trade it for the Chinese steel and help the Chinese kill their own economy, while milking them of their subsidized steel and thus hastening their downfall.

 

[mikegriffith1]

Again, you need to LEARN about the Law of Comparative Advantage. Whatever growth that was had IN SPITE of tariffs would have been greater had they obeyed the Law of Comparative Advantage. In proving the Law one example MATHEMATICALLY compares the advantage of not putting a tariff on goods even if the other country does and if both countries impose tariffs. No tariffs has the greater advantage even if the other country imposes tariffs. The MATH proves it, so as great as the growth might have been with tariffs in the past, the growth would have been BETTER without them, the math is unassailable.

This is pseudo-intellectual jibberish. We have decades and decades of economic history that proves that high tariffs work and work very well. George Washington and Alexander Hamilton understood the value of high tariffs. So did Abraham Lincoln. So did every Republican president well into the 20th century. We experienced robust economic growth under high tariffs, over and over again, and the few recessions that occurred during those times had nothing to do with tariffs.

As for those who have criticized President Taft:

* He was a fiscal conservative. He gave us a budget surplus in 1911 and 1912.

* He curbed the excesses of Teddy Roosevelt's executive orders on conservation and insisted that such actions had to be taken by Congress.

* He appointed conservative judges to the Supreme Court.

The liberal wing of the GOP was so upset with Taft that they talked Teddy Roosevelt into running in 1912 and ensured Woodrow Wilson's disastrous election.

 

[edthecynic]

Again, you need to LEARN about the Law of Comparative Advantage. Whatever growth that was had IN SPITE of tariffs would have been greater had they obeyed the Law of Comparative Advantage. In proving the Law one example MATHEMATICALLY compares the advantage of not putting a tariff on goods even if the other country does and if both countries impose tariffs. No tariffs has the greater advantage even if the other country imposes tariffs. The MATH proves it, so as great as the growth might have been with tariffs in the past, the growth would have been BETTER without them, the math is unassailable.

This is pseudo-intellectual jibberish. We have decades and decades of economic history that proves that high tariffs work and work very well. George Washington and Alexander Hamilton understood the value of high tariffs. So did Abraham Lincoln. So did every Republican president well into the 20th century. We experienced robust economic growth under high tariffs, over and over again, and the few recessions that occurred during those times had nothing to do with tariffs.

As for those who have criticized President Taft:

* He was a fiscal conservative. He gave us a budget surplus in 1911 and 1912.

* He curbed the excesses of Teddy Roosevelt's executive orders on conservation and insisted that such actions had to be taken by Congress.

* He appointed conservative judges to the Supreme Court.

The liberal wing of the GOP was so upset with Taft that they talked Teddy Roosevelt into running in 1912 and ensured Woodrow Wilson's disastrous election.

That is stubborn ignorant hogwash.
You can't rebut the mathematics of the Law of Comparative Advantage so you spout wing-nut OPINION.

 

[mikegriffith1]

Again, you need to LEARN about the Law of Comparative Advantage. Whatever growth that was had IN SPITE of tariffs would have been greater had they obeyed the Law of Comparative Advantage. In proving the Law one example MATHEMATICALLY compares the advantage of not putting a tariff on goods even if the other country does and if both countries impose tariffs. No tariffs has the greater advantage even if the other country imposes tariffs. The MATH proves it, so as great as the growth might have been with tariffs in the past, the growth would have been BETTER without them, the math is unassailable.

This is pseudo-intellectual jibberish. We have decades and decades of economic history that proves that high tariffs work and work very well. George Washington and Alexander Hamilton understood the value of high tariffs. So did Abraham Lincoln. So did every Republican president well into the 20th century. We experienced robust economic growth under high tariffs, over and over again, and the few recessions that occurred during those times had nothing to do with tariffs.

As for those who have criticized President Taft:

* He was a fiscal conservative. He gave us a budget surplus in 1911 and 1912.

* He curbed the excesses of Teddy Roosevelt's executive orders on conservation and insisted that such actions had to be taken by Congress.

* He appointed conservative judges to the Supreme Court.

The liberal wing of the GOP was so upset with Taft that they talked Teddy Roosevelt into running in 1912 and ensured Woodrow Wilson's disastrous election.

That is stubborn ignorant hogwash.
You can't rebut the mathematics of the Law of Comparative Advantage so you spout wing-nut OPINION.

It is not "opinion," much less "wing-nut OPINION." It is cold, hard economic history. We had decade after decade after decade of economic growth behind the protection of high tariffs.

For example: What happened after the Tariff of 1922? Humm? We had the "Roaring Twenties" when the economy grew by leaps and bounds. We still had fairly high tariff rates through the Eisenhower years (Kennedy cut tariffs in 1962). How did the economy do under Eisenhower? Hey? Look it up. We had growth rates under Ike that we have not seen in the last 16 years of our "free trade era" under NAFTA, CAFTA, WTO, etc. Gee, why is that? How did we fare under President Taft? Hey? Look it up. We had good economic growth and a budget surplus for Taft's last two years. How about Calvin Coolidge, who famously said that "the business of America is business"? Coolidge, who understood business well, ardently believed in and defended high tariffs. How did we do under Coolidge? Look it up. We did just fine--he was president during most of the "Roaring Twenties."

http://miketgriffith.com/files/caseforhightariffs.pdf