Re: PK on race to the bottom (a different one)
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 06/11/02 03:41PM Tariffs were an important source of Federal revenue in the olden days. mbs They still are an important source of govt income in some LDCs. I wonder if this fact escapes most proponents of free trade for the periphery. -Frank G no need to wonder, above doesn't escape such ideologues... tariffs were principal source of u.s. federal revenue until early 20th century adoption of income tax and u.s. tariffs rates were historically quite high (even after it had supplanted britain as hegemonic power, of course, since latter's 19th century 'free trade' policies had no other industrialized economies to contend with, industrial imports weren't a threat)... initial congress under 1787 constitution enacted tariffs and hamilton was very explicit in 1791 'report on manufactures' that import taxes protect/nurture 'infant' u.s. industries... very early example of south getting its way occurred during 1787 constitutional convention when northern delegates agreed to '3/5ths' and 'slave trade' compromises' re. slaves for purposes of federal representation and taxation...south carolina and georgia delegates to convention were steadfast on latter... while entire history of matter is, of course, repugnant, ten dollar duty on imported slaves (art. 1, sec. 9) was itself mostly meaningless re. revenue as such importation into u.s. had mostly ended by late 18th century and good deal of what remained was smuggled and therefore not subject to being taxed (in any event, no enforcement mechanisms existed)... that congress made slave trade illegal after 1808 when it had authority to do so (some delegates to convention apparently 'consoled' themselves by maintaining that slavery itself would then die out) had little effect on smuggling business that did exist and did little to curb thriving domestic slave trade that continued up through civil war (again, no enforcement mechanisms existed)...michael hoover
Re: PK on race to the bottom (a different one)
Where? On Tue, Jun 11, 2002 at 06:47:00AM -0700, Devine, James wrote: --- Schumpeter remarked that protectionism was the [U.S.] Republican's main domestic policy tool during the so-called laissez-faire era. So is there a return to form? JD -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Re: PK on race to the bottom (a different one)
Title: RE: [PEN-L:26704] Re: PK on race to the bottom (a different one) Tariffs were, as Schumpeter put it, 'the household remedy' of the Republican Party. -- Charles P. Kindleberger, THE WORLD IN DEPRESSION, 1929-39, University of California Press (1973), p. 133. the footnote is to a book by E.E. Schattschneider, POLITICS, PRESSURES, AND TARIFFS, Prentice-Hall, 1935, pp. 283-4. The point is that in the earlier long period of U.S. rule by the GOPsters (1861-1932, with short periods of DP rule, under Cleveland and Wilson), they regularly raised tariffs. For example, any pro-competitive impact that the anti-trust laws had was undermined by higher import taxes. Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine -Original Message- From: Michael Perelman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Saturday, June 08, 2002 7:27 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [PEN-L:26704] Re: PK on race to the bottom (a different one) Where? On Tue, Jun 11, 2002 at 06:47:00AM -0700, Devine, James wrote: --- Schumpeter remarked that protectionism was the [U.S.] Republican's main domestic policy tool during the so-called laissez-faire era. So is there a return to form? JD -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: RE: Re: PK on race to the bottom (a different one)
Title: RE: [PEN-L:26704] Re: PK on race to the bottom (a different one) - Original Message - From: Devine, James To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]' Sent: Tuesday, June 11, 2002 9:02 AM Subject: [PEN-L:26705] RE: Re: PK on race to the bottom (a different one) "Tariffs were, as Schumpeter put it, 'the household remedy' of the Republican Party." -- Charles P. Kindleberger, THE WORLD IN DEPRESSION, 1929-39, University of California Press (1973), p. 133. the footnote is to a book by E.E. Schattschneider, POLITICS, PRESSURES, AND TARIFFS, Prentice-Hall, 1935, pp. 283-4. The point is that in the earlier long period of U.S. rule by the GOPsters (1861-1932, with short periods of DP rule, under Cleveland and Wilson), they regularly raised tariffs. For example, any pro-competitive impact that the anti-trust laws had was undermined by higher import taxes. Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine To the extent there is a Schumpeterian wing of Repug. thinkers on PE [dashed with a sprinkle of Mancur Olson] they have problems with the idea of a 'national interest.' All politics is special interest politics to them. See David Held's "Models of Democracy" chapter 5, which goes into Schumpeter's view of democracy--it ain't pretty. Ian
RE: RE: Re: PK on race to the bottom (a different one)
Tariffs were an important source of Federal revenue in the olden days. mbs \ Tariffs were, as Schumpeter put it, 'the household remedy' of the Republican Party. -- Charles P. Kindleberger, THE WORLD IN DEPRESSION, 1929-39, University of California Press (1973), p. 133. the footnote is to a book by E.E. Schattschneider, POLITICS, PRESSURES, AND TARIFFS, Prentice-Hall, 1935, pp. 283-4. The point is that in the earlier long period of U.S. rule by the GOPsters (1861-1932, with short periods of DP rule, under Cleveland and Wilson), they regularly raised tariffs. For example, any pro-competitive impact that the anti-trust laws had was undermined by higher import taxes. Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine
Re: RE: RE: Re: PK on race to the bottom (a different one)
Which is why business supported the income tax. On Tue, Jun 11, 2002 at 01:17:43PM -0400, Max Sawicky wrote: Tariffs were an important source of Federal revenue in the olden days. -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Re: RE: RE: Re: PK on race to the bottom (a different one)
they no longer feared populist tax revolts. - Original Message - From: Michael Perelman [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, June 08, 2002 10:40 AM Subject: [PEN-L:26713] Re: RE: RE: Re: PK on race to the bottom (a different one) Which is why business supported the income tax. On Tue, Jun 11, 2002 at 01:17:43PM -0400, Max Sawicky wrote: Tariffs were an important source of Federal revenue in the olden days. -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Re: RE: Re: PK on race to the bottom (a different one)
Title: RE: [PEN-L:26719] Re: RE: Re: PK on race to the bottom (a different one) I wrote: The point is that in the earlier long period of U.S. rule by the GOPsters (1861-1932, with short periods of DP rule, under Cleveland and Wilson), they regularly raised tariffs. For example, any pro-competitive impact that the anti-trust laws had was undermined by higher import taxes. Doug writes: And organized labor was anti-tariff at the time, right? In general, the CIO was anti-tariff until the 1970s. I don't know about the AFL, which was relevant back in the period I mentioned. My impression is that the AFL was more involved in another kind of protectionism, that of being anti-immigrant and anti-Black (and anti-woman-in-the paid workforce). The Knights of Labor, the IWW, and the CP-oriented unions (e.g., the TUUL) were of course better on (some of, all of?) these issues. Please correct me if I'm wrong. Free José Padilla! or at least put him under civilian law rules! JD
Re: RE: RE: Re: PK on race to the bottom (a different one)
From: Max Sawicky [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [PEN-L:26711] RE: RE: Re: PK on race to the bottom (a different one) Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2002 13:17:43 -0400 Tariffs were an important source of Federal revenue in the olden days. mbs \ They still are an important source of govt income in some LDCs. I wonder if this fact escapes most proponents of free trade for the periphery. -Frank G _ MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos: http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx
RE: RE: Re: RE: Re: PK on race to the bottom (a different one)
My impression is the AFL-CIO was pro free trade until the early 1980's, when Bluestone/Harrison and others began writing about the vanishing 'middle class.' mbs -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Devine, James Sent: Tuesday, June 11, 2002 3:35 PM To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]' Subject: [PEN-L:26722] RE: Re: RE: Re: PK on race to the bottom (a different one) I wrote: The point is that in the earlier long period of U.S. rule by the GOPsters (1861-1932, with short periods of DP rule, under Cleveland and Wilson), they regularly raised tariffs. For example, any pro-competitive impact that the anti-trust laws had was undermined by higher import taxes. Doug writes: And organized labor was anti-tariff at the time, right? In general, the CIO was anti-tariff until the 1970s. I don't know about the AFL, which was relevant back in the period I mentioned. My impression is that the AFL was more involved in another kind of protectionism, that of being anti-immigrant and anti-Black (and anti-woman-in-the paid workforce). The Knights of Labor, the IWW, and the CP-oriented unions (e.g., the TUUL) were of course better on (some of, all of?) these issues. Please correct me if I'm wrong. Free José Padilla! or at least put him under civilian law rules! JD
