Tariffs and trade wars: here's what Trump is failing to learn from the Great Depression
This dramatic change stemmed from one of the most harmful decisions in modern economic history: the Smoot-Hawley Act, enacted in June 1930. This law, championed by senator Reed Smoot and congressman Willis C. Hawley, aimed to safeguard US agricultural interests in the wake of the 1929 stock market crash.
However, pressure from industry lobbies meant it quickly expanded to cover over 20,000 products, including manufactured goods. Tariffs averaged around 40%, but in some cases were as high as 100%.
Far from helping the economy, this measure contributed to the collapse of international trade, as countries like Canada, France, Italy, Germany and the UK imposed harsh retaliatory tariffs on on US products. This set off a chain reaction: international cooperation weakened, US exports fell by 61% between 1929 and 1933, and global trade shrunk by over 60%.
This further aggravated the Great Depression. It hit economies who depended on international trade especially hard, and exacerbated geopolitical tensions throughout the 1930s.
Skyrocketing inflation, mass job destruction and falling living standards became stark testaments to protectionism's failure. The contraction of global trade not only crippled key industries, but also destabilised entire economies that depended on exports to sustain growth. Currencies were devalued, deficits soared, and financial systems collapsed one after the other.
The 1930s therefore witnessed not only an economic crisis, but also a transformation of the international system fuelled, in part, by misguided political and trade decisions. This historical lesson, as the current case of Trump's tariffs demonstrates, continues to be ignored by leaders who prioritise short-term populist measures over global economic stability.
Leer más:
After decades of progress in trade liberalisation – driven by multilateral organisations like the World Trade Organization, the United Nations and the OECD – it seemed that lessons had been learned. However, Donald Trump's second presidential term has revived disturbing parallels with Smoot-Hawley.
Historical and contemporary evidence clearly shows that tariffs rarely function as an effective tool of economic protection. In an interdependent global system, supply chains cross multiple borders before reaching the final consumer. Higher tariffs raise production costs, hurting both consumers and businesses, even in the countries that implement them.
In addition to the US, other countries have also felt the adverse effects of protectionism. Argentina, for instance, implemented an import substitution policy with high tariffs and trade restrictions for decades. Although it initially stimulated industrial development, in the long run it led to a loss of competitiveness, high inflation and dependence on the state to prop up inefficient sectors.
Brazil had a similar experience in the 1980s and 1990s. Its tariff barriers temporarily protected certain industries, but also reduced product quality and stifled technological innovation.
Until its 1991 economic reforms, India had one of the world's most protectionist tariff regimes, which limited its integration into global trade and slowed its economic growth.
From these examples we can see that protectionism often causes a chain reaction of negative, escalating impacts:
Rising prices for consumers
Loss of economic competitiveness and job destruction
Reduction of global economic growth due to uncertainty and diminished international trade.
From the Smoot-Hawley Act to Trump's current trade war, economic history clearly demonstrates that protectionism is not only ineffective, but counterproductive. In a world where value chains are global and innovation depends on transnational cooperation, closing economic borders weakens collective resilience.
Protectionism may seem like an immediate solution to economic crises and domestic pressures, but its long-term consequences are almost always more costly than its apparent benefits. Instead of strengthening domestic industries, it isolates them. Instead of protecting jobs, it destroys future opportunities.
The aforementioned cup of coffee in 1932 became a symbol of an economy locked in on itself. In 2025, it could be electric car batteries, medicines or basic foodstuffs that remind us of the high cost of negatively interfering in global trade.
Now more than ever before, international cooperation, market diversification and investment in sustainable competitiveness are the only smart way forward.
Este artículo fue publicado originalmente en The Conversation, un sitio de noticias sin fines de lucro dedicado a compartir ideas de expertos académicos.
Lee mas:
Trump protectionism and tariffs: a threat to globalisation, or to democracy itself?
U.S. tariffs are about to trigger the greatest trade diversion the world has ever seen
Trump's tariffs rollercoaster is really about Republican unity
Deniz Torcu no recibe salario, ni ejerce labores de consultoría, ni posee acciones, ni recibe financiación de ninguna compañía u organización que pueda obtener beneficio de este artículo, y ha declarado carecer de vínculos relevantes más allá del cargo académico citado.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Los Angeles Times
an hour ago
- Los Angeles Times
Trump's tariffs leave a lot of losers, from Laos to Brazil. And there were no real winners
WASHINGTON — President Trump's tariff onslaught this week left a lot of losers — from small, poor countries such as Laos and Algeria to wealthy U.S. trading partners such as Canada and Switzerland. They're now facing especially hefty export taxes — tariffs — on the products they export to the U.S. starting Thursday. The closest thing to winners may be the countries that succumbed to Trump's demands — and avoided even more pain. But it's unclear whether anyone will be able to claim victory in the long run — even the United States, the intended beneficiary of Trump's protectionist policies. 'In many respects, everybody's a loser here,'' said Barry Appleton, co-director of the Center for International Law at the New York Law School. Barely six months after he returned to the White House, Trump has demolished the old global economic order. Gone is one built on agreed-upon rules. In its place is a system in which Trump himself sets the rules, using America's enormous economic power to punish countries that won't agree to one-sided trade deals and extracting huge concessions from the ones that do. 'The biggest winner is Trump,' said Alan Wolff, a former U.S. trade official and deputy director-general at the World Trade Organization. 'He bet that he could get other countries to the table on the basis of threats, and he succeeded — dramatically.'' Everything goes back to what Trump calls 'Liberation Day'' — April 2 — when the president announced 'reciprocal'' taxes of up to 50% on imports from countries with which the United States ran trade deficits and 10% 'baseline'' taxes on almost everyone else. He invoked a 1977 law to declare the trade deficit a national emergency that justified his sweeping import taxes. That allowed him to bypass Congress, which traditionally has had authority over taxes, including tariffs — all of which is now being challenged in court. Trump retreated temporarily after April announcement triggered a rout in financial markets and suspended the reciprocal tariffs for 90 days to give countries a chance to negotiate. Eventually some of them did, acceding to Trump's demands to pay what four months ago would have seemed unthinkably high tariffs to maintain their ability to sell to the vast American market. The United Kingdom agreed to 10% tariffs on its exports to the United States — up from 1.3% before Trump amped up his trade war with the world. The U.S. demanded concessions even though it had run a trade surplus, not a deficit, with the U.K. for 19 straight years. The European Union and Japan accepted U.S. tariffs of 15%. Those are much higher than the low-single-digit rates they paid last year, but lower than the tariffs he was threatening — 30% on the EU and 25% on Japan. Also cutting deals with Trump and agreeing to hefty tariffs were Pakistan, South Korea, Vietnam, Indonesia and the Philippines. Even countries that saw their tariffs lowered from April without reaching a deal are still paying much higher tariffs than before Trump took office. Angola's tariff, for instance, dropped to 15% from 32% in April, but in 2022 it was less than 1.5%. And while the Trump administration cut Taiwan's tariff to 20% from 32% in April, the pain will still be felt by a U.S. ally that China claims as its territory. 'Twenty percent from the beginning has not been our goal. We hope that in further negotiations we will get a more beneficial and more reasonable tax rate,' Taiwan's President Lai Ching-te told reporters in Taipei on Friday. Trump also agreed to reduce the tariff on the tiny southern African kingdom of Lesotho to 15% from the 50% he'd announced in April, but the damage may already have been done there. Countries that didn't knuckle under — and those that found other ways to incur Trump's wrath — got hit harder. Even some of the poor were not spared. Laos' annual economic output comes to $2,100 per person and Algeria's $5,600 — versus America's $75,000. Nonetheless, Laos got rocked with a 40% tariff and Algeria with a 30% levy. Trump slammed Brazil with a 50% import tax largely because he didn't like the way it was treating former Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro, a close Trump ally who is facing trial for trying to overturn his electoral loss and inspiring a riot in the capital in 2023 — recalling Trump's role in the Jan. 6. insurrection two years earlier at the U.S. Capitol. Never mind that the U.S. has exported more to Brazil than it's imported every year since 2007. Trump's decision to plaster a 35% tariff on long-standing U.S. ally Canada was partly designed to threaten Ottawa for saying it would recognize a Palestinian state in light of the humanitarian crisis in the Gaza Strip. Trump is a staunch supporter of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Switzerland was clobbered with a 39% import tax — even higher than the 31% Trump announced on April 2. 'The Swiss probably wish that they had camped in Washington'' to make a deal, said Wolff, now a senior fellow at the Peterson Institute for International Economics. 'They're clearly not at all happy.'' Fortunes may change if Trump's tariffs are upended in court. Five American businesses and 12 states are suing the president, arguing that his April 2 tariffs exceeded his authority under the 1977 law. In May, the U.S. Court of International Trade, a specialized court in New York, agreed and blocked the tariffs, although the government was allowed to continue collecting them while its appeal wends its way through the legal system, and may end up at the Supreme Court. In a hearing Thursday, the judges on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit sounded skeptical about Trump's justifications for the tariffs. 'If [the tariffs] get struck down, then maybe Brazil's a winner and not a loser,'' Appleton said. Trump portrays his tariffs as a tax on foreign countries. But they are actually paid by import companies in the U.S. who typically pass along the cost to their customers via higher prices. True, tariffs can hurt other countries by forcing their exporters to cut prices and sacrifice profits — or risk losing market share in the United States. But economists at Goldman Sachs estimate that overseas exporters have absorbed just one-fifth of the rising costs from tariffs, while Americans and U.S. businesses have picked up the most of the tab. Walmart, Procter & Gamble, Ford, Best Buy, Adidas, Nike, Mattel and Stanley Black & Decker have all raised prices due to U.S. tariffs. 'This is a consumption tax, so it disproportionately affects those who have lower incomes,' Appleton said. 'Sneakers, knapsacks ... your appliances are going to go up. Your TV and electronics are going to go up. Your video game devices, consoles are going to up because none of those are made in America.'' Trump's trade war has pushed the average U.S. tariff from 2.5% at the start of 2025 to 18.3% now, the highest since 1934, according to the Budget Lab at Yale University. And that will impose a $2,400 cost on the average household, the lab estimates. 'The U.S. consumer's a big loser,″ Wolff said. Wiseman writes for the Associated Press. AP writer Christopher Rugaber contributed to this report.
Boston Globe
3 hours ago
- Boston Globe
Iran is holding at least 4 American citizens, rights groups and families say
The detentions are likely to increase the tense political climate between Tehran and Washington after the United States joined Israel's attack on Iran and bombarded and severely damaged three of its nuclear sites in June. Advertisement Nuclear negotiations with Washington have not resumed since the war in June, but Iran's foreign minister, Abbas Araghchi, said this past week in an interview with local news media that he and the U.S. special envoy, Steve Witkoff, have been communicating directly through text messages. President Donald Trump has said that he would not tolerate countries' wrongful detention of Americans and that their release is a top priority for his administration. Witkoff's office did not respond to a question on whether the detention of dual American citizens was brought up in communications with Araghchi. The State Department has said that it is 'closely tracking' reports of Americans being detained in Iran. 'For privacy, safety and operational reasons, we do not get into the details of our internal or diplomatic discussions on reported U.S. detainees,' it said in a statement Monday. 'We call on Iran to immediately release all unjustly detained individuals in Iran.' Advertisement Iran's mission to the United Nations declined to comment on the detentions. Iran's Ministry of Intelligence said in a statement on Monday that it had arrested at least 20 people who were working as spies or operatives for Israel in cities across Iran. The four detained Iranian Americans had all lived in the United States and had traveled to Iran to visit family, according to the rights groups. The families of three of the Americans have asked that their names not be published for fear it could make their situations worse. Two of the four were arrested by security agents in the immediate aftermath of Israel's attacks on Iran in June, according to the Human Rights Activists News Agency (or HRANA) and Hengaw, independent rights groups based outside Iran. One is a 70-year-old Jewish father and grandfather from New York who has a jewelry business. He is being questioned about a trip to Israel, according to the rights groups and the man's colleagues and friends. The other is a woman from California who was held in the notorious Evin prison. But her whereabouts is now unclear after Israel attacked Evin in June and the prison was evacuated, according to rights groups and Kylie Moore-Gilbert, an Australian British scholar who was imprisoned in Iran for two years and released in 2020. Iran is also holding another Iranian American woman, who was first imprisoned and prevented from leaving the country in December 2024. She is currently out of prison, but her Iranian and American passports were confiscated, according to her U.S.-based lawyer who asked not to be named to discuss sensitive information. Advertisement The woman works for a U.S. technology company and runs a charity for underprivileged children in Iran. But after the recent war, the Iranian judiciary elevated her case and charged her with espionage, according to her lawyer -- a serious crime that can carry many years in prison and even the death penalty. At least one other Iranian American citizen, journalist Reza Valizadeh, is imprisoned in Iran. He is a former employee of Radio Farda, the Persian-language news outlet that is part of the State Department-funded Radio Free Europe. Radio Farda has said in a statement that he was arrested in October 2024 while visiting family in Iran. He was sentenced to 10 years in prison on charges of 'collaborating with a hostile government.' Two senior Iranian officials who asked not to be identified because they were not authorized to speak publicly confirmed that Iran had recently detained two dual American citizens -- the New York man and the California woman. They said it was part of a wider crackdown focused on finding a network of operatives linked to Israel and United States. The crackdown comes as Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian has encouraged Iranians in the diaspora to return to Iran. He said recently that he would speak with the ministries of intelligence and judiciary to facilitate those returns, according to local news reports. 'We have to create a framework so that Iranians living abroad can come to Iran without fear,' Pezeshkian said. But Ali Vaez, the Iran director for the International Crisis Group, said recently: 'The Iranian government has a sordid history of cracking down domestically following intelligence failures, and seizing foreign nationals as a cynical form of leverage. And at a time when Tehran and the Trump administration are already at loggerheads over nuclear diplomacy, the arrests could add another significant area of contention.' Advertisement The State Department issued a new warning after the war, telling Americans not to travel to Iran 'under any circumstances.' In a statement in English and Persian, it says that Americans, including Iranian Americans, 'have been wrongfully detained -- taken hostage -- by the Iranian government for months, and years. The threat of detention is even greater today.' The news of the Americans' detentions has rattled the Iranian American community, including several people previously detained in Iran. Many of them are often the first point of contact for families who find themselves navigating the frightening ordeal of having a loved one arrested in Iran. Siamak Namazi, an Iranian American businessperson who was held for eight years in Iran before being released as part of a U.S.-Iran deal in 2023, said that since the war with Israel, the number of Americans detained in Iran has grown. 'Some cases are public; others remain under wraps, often due to poor advice that silence is safer,' he said. 'Securing their release must be a core U.S. priority in any future diplomatic engagement with Tehran,' added Namazi, who is on the board of Hostage Aid Worldwide. In New York's tight-knit Jewish Iranian circles, news of one member's detention spread quickly and brought anxiety. Iran has arrested at least five Jewish Iranians in its postwar crackdown and has summoned 35 more for questioning, according to Skylar Thompson, deputy director of HRANA. Advertisement This article originally appeared in
New York Post
3 hours ago
- New York Post
Arab nations are getting wise to Hamas — even as others foolishly squeeze Israel
Most media ignored last week's most important Middle East development: Arab nations for the first time publicly slammed Hamas' Oct. 7, 2023, massacre and demanded the terrorists surrender power, disarm, and release their hostages. OK, it's a low bar. But it's progress, and a lot more meaningful than British Prime Minister Keir Starmer's threat to recognize a Palestinian state or the other maneuvering over Gaza's food crisis. The landmark demands came in a seven-page declaration Tuesday by 17 countries, plus the European Union and the entire 22-member Arab League, including Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and Qatar. Advertisement British Foreign Secretary David Lammy embraces Palestinian Prime Minister Mohammad Mustafa after Lammy spoke at a United Nations conference on July 29, 2025. AFP via Getty Images They reflect a willingness — finally! — to publicly acknowledge that Hamas' ouster is necessary to end the war in Gaza and thus ease the suffering of its civilians. Hallelujah: We've stressed since Day 1 that the conflict can't end with Hamas in power; the group, after all, openly vows to keep attacking the Jewish state until Israel is destroyed. Advertisement Perhaps the Gaza food shortages got the Arabs' attention — even if most reports misled readers by tacitly (or even openly) blaming Jerusalem for them. Bigger picture: Nations like Saudi Arabia and Qatar, egged on by President Donald Trump, are now eager to normalize relations with Israel, though they want the Gaza fighting to end first. Sadly, other parts of Tuesday's statement are as misguided as ever, calling for Hamas to 'hand over its weapons to the Palestinian Authority, with international engagement and support, in line with the objective of a sovereign and independent Palestinian State.' Advertisement With Gaza then seeing 'the deployment of a temporary international stabilization mission upon invitation by the Palestinian Authority and under the aegis of the United Nations.' The Palestinian Authority? The United Nations? Neither is fit for real responsibilities: The PA is nothing but an autocratic kleptocracy that uses international-aid funds to enrich its leaders and to pay terrorists to kill Israelis; even clueless President Joe Biden insisted it would have to be 'revitalized' before it could play any role in Gaza. UN peacekeepers, meanwhile, have never managed to keep peace anywhere in the Middle East; instead, the world body's presence — e.g., via groups like the UN Relief and Works Agency — has only fueled violence in the region. Advertisement Even more brainless is Starmer's threat to recognize a Palestinian state, along with France and Canada's plans to do so next month, 'unless the Israeli government takes substantive steps to end the appalling situation in Gaza, agree to a cease-fire and commit to a long-term, sustainable peace, reviving the prospect of a two-state solution.' Why no threats to Hamas if it keeps preventing food from reaching ordinary Gazans? How about insisting that it hand over its remaining Israeli hostages? Look: Israel has already taken 'substantive steps' to aid Gaza's civilians, and has already agreed to numerous cease-fire plans. Hamas rejects any cease-fire unless Israel agrees to let it keep power in Gaza, even as the terrorists block the peaceful distribution of food aid. It also refuses to release the remaining hostages, knowing that if it did, it would be its last act before total annihilation. As for a 'two-state solution,' Israelis backed it (until Oct. 7, anyway); the problem is finding Palestinian leadership to agree to a deal that doesn't put Israel's future at risk. So why is Starmer threatening Israel? Advertisement Oh, and here's a reality check: The outside world can't actually summon a state into existence; citizens of a would-be nation must create it on their own. Fact is, neither Britain, France, nor any other country can truly claim to care about Gazans unless they focus solely on the heart of the problem: Hamas. That Arab nations are at last starting to admit that it is the most hopeful sign yet for peace.
