Anne Applebaum: We're all free traders now. So why are protectionist policies so popular?
Some think the New Deal rescued the United States from economic crisis in the 1930s. Others argue precisely the opposite. But whatever their ideology and whatever their credentials, most of the pundits, historians, and economists who debate the Great Depression agree about one thing: Whatever may have caused the crisis, protectionism, trade barriers, and, yes, the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act helped ensure that it lasted as long as it did. So uncontroversial is this view that it is virtually U.S. government policy. "To this day," intones a State Department Web site, "the phrase 'Smoot-Hawley' remains a watchword for the perils of protectionism."
With equal solemnity, government officials everywhere are now echoing that sentiment. Last weekend, the finance ministers of the G-7 once again swore fealty to the official anti-tariff mantra, announcing that they remain "committed to avoiding protectionist measures, which would only exacerbate the downturn." U.S. Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner agreed: "All countries need to sustain a commitment to open trade and investment policies which are essential to economic growth." So did his German colleague: "We will have to do everything to ensure history does not repeat itself."
This is all very well—except that there are many ways to pursue protectionist policies, and rest assured that someone, somewhere, is right now trying every single one of them. New tariffs are already in force, for example, in Russia, where especially high ones have destroyed the previously thriving used-car import business (and thus inspired used-car salesmen to stage a series of unusually violent protests). Rumors of more tariffs pending—in Brazil, in the Philippines—are haunting the steel industry trade press. Still, these are minor infractions. The real story, over the next several years, will be the spread of more carefully camouflaged protectionism—measures, some legal and some not, deliberately designed to help one nation's workers or companies at the expense of those next-door....
Read entire article at Slate
With equal solemnity, government officials everywhere are now echoing that sentiment. Last weekend, the finance ministers of the G-7 once again swore fealty to the official anti-tariff mantra, announcing that they remain "committed to avoiding protectionist measures, which would only exacerbate the downturn." U.S. Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner agreed: "All countries need to sustain a commitment to open trade and investment policies which are essential to economic growth." So did his German colleague: "We will have to do everything to ensure history does not repeat itself."
This is all very well—except that there are many ways to pursue protectionist policies, and rest assured that someone, somewhere, is right now trying every single one of them. New tariffs are already in force, for example, in Russia, where especially high ones have destroyed the previously thriving used-car import business (and thus inspired used-car salesmen to stage a series of unusually violent protests). Rumors of more tariffs pending—in Brazil, in the Philippines—are haunting the steel industry trade press. Still, these are minor infractions. The real story, over the next several years, will be the spread of more carefully camouflaged protectionism—measures, some legal and some not, deliberately designed to help one nation's workers or companies at the expense of those next-door....