Can Protective Tariffs be Defended?
Joseph Dana Miller
[Reprinted from Land and Freedom, March-April
1938]
Joseph Dana Miller was during this period
Editor of Land and Freedom. Many of the editorials
published were unsigned. It is therefore possible that Miller was
not the author of this article, although the content is thought to
be consistent with his own perspectives as Editor. |
That the Protective Tariff is on its way out seems as good a guess as
any. Discredited as it is by bitter experience, its main contentions
refuted in every college and university in the land, it has lost its
appeal to the intelligentsia. Its failure in Great Britain to arrest
the depression, and a similar experience in the United States, have
left an increasing number of minds in doubt.
It was great fun while it lasted. It was amusing to watch the
topsy-turviness of the thing and the mental gyrations of cowardly free
traders anxious to satisfy the protection sentiments of their
constituents. Take Theodore Roosevelt and James A. Garfield, both
members of the British Cobden Free Trade Club, and the fatal admission
of James G. Blaine in his work, "Twenty Years a Congress."
These men, Jekylls and Hydes in their different fields of activity,
presented abundant entertainment in proposals and statements
impossible to reconcile.
The protective theory is a maze of contradictions. Just for a resume
of the recommendations for a protective tariff which we do not hear so
much about these days but which it is interesting to reflect were once
potent arguments in support of protection. No such jumble of strange
doctrine was ever held outside of Bedlam. Some of it is still held. We
must not delude ourselves. That an increasing number have been
undeceived is true, but he truth has not yet filtered down to the
masses who are he last to perceive anything.
the argument once heard still heard in fact ran something like this:
I will give you, said the Proectionist to the worker, a system that
will raise your wages; to you, the manufacturer, a system that will
increase your profits; to you, the consumer, a system that will lower
prices." Was there ever such a wonder-working miracle? The
manufacturer was to be benefited by legisation that would force him to
lower prices and raise rages. The workman was to receive this increase
in wages from increased profits. But though protectionists told the
people that cheapness was not desirable, nevertheless to the consumer
prices were to be reduced.
Rates of wages, we are now coming to perceive, are not cost of labor.
The cost of labor may be, and usually is, the highest where wages are
lowest, and vice versa. Therefore when protectionists speak of the
cost of labor, they mean only the rate of wages, which is a different
matter. So, too, the cost of production involves these considerations
and others besides. We are learning that as a rule importations from
Japan made by cheap labor so-called, which constitutes one of the
worriments of the makers of American bulbs and gadgets, are not as
serviceable as those of our own manufacture.
Perfect freedom of trade would tend more and more to secure to each
worker a larger share of his natural reward. It is not reasonable to
suppose that in the open markets of the world, where the whole market
was the demand, that the wages of the worker would be lower than in an
artificially restricted market. It is folly to imagine that high wage
countries, high as wages go, cannot compete with low wage countries.
England, that paid the highest wages in Europe, did it for nearly
fifty years. As a matter of fact the trend of export is from high wage
to low wage countries. It has always been so.
OF course, there is a factor that operates to defeat the rise in
wages from whatever source. Land absorbs the gain. Ultimately, as Mr.
George contended, it absorbs all of it. And observing this, though
unconscious of its cause and not perceiving it all clearly, protective
tariffs have continued to appeal to the workers. And their teachers
being about as ignorant as the masses of economic cause and effect,
have not been able to indicate why this is so. And the politicians who
are chiefly concerned in retaining office and spending the people's
money have encouraged the superstition of protection for their own
benefit. They hand out their favors, or what their constituencies
regard as favors, in tariff aid to local manufacturers just like they
hand out the dole. And both are deadly poison to a nation.
When we have something given to us by government, or think that
government can give us anything that they do not take from us, we are
in the down grade of civilization, and traveling fast. A few more
generations of the dole and democracy will cease to exist. Protection
and the dole are sisters of evil and are deadly poison to the citizen,
insidiously lulling to sleep the self-respect of the worker and
finally reducing him to the slave mind of the helot.
It is not solely nor principally differences in wages that determine
the course of trade, but, more vitally, differences in natural
resources, climate and aptitudes. As an illustration of climate as one
of the determining factors it might be pointed out that at one time in
England, a condition probably still prevailing, in the town of Oldham
was manufactured a certain kind of cotton cloth that could not be
duplicated anywhere in the world.
Whether due to aptitudes or superior labor efficiency it may be
indicated that the greater part of our exports, excluding farm
products, is made up of commodities in which labor as an element of
cost predominates, such as watches, clocks and machinery, and this is
significant too in consideration of our problem. When Mr. Burger, a
Swiss watchmaker, delegate to the Centennial Exposition in 1876, after
a comparison of Swiss and American watches, stated that the scepter of
the watch- making industry had passed from Geneva to America, he
definitely stated what had been apparent to American manufacturers for
a long time that to refer again to James G. Elaine, leader of the
protectionist force, in the Republican party, that longer hours of
labor and greater efficiency, principally perhaps in the greater
subdivision of labor gave America the mastery.
It cannot prima facie be that a theory like protection that
contradicts all elements of reason and logic is scientifically
correct. Take the "balance of trade" theory of which we hear
so much namely that a country prospers by its excess of exports over
imports and that this constitutes what is called "a favorable
balance." Here is the pans asinorum of the problem that seems to
puzzle so many people. Even some "journals of civilization"
like the New York Times, which is old enough to know better, repeats
the absurd chatter. The idea at the back of it in the mass mind is
that we are to be paid some time in money for this excess of exports.
If we are, some day the "favorable balance" will change to
an "unfavorable balance" due to an excess of imports!
But of course it all isn't so. Goods are paid for in goods. Trade
between peoples is a two-way traffic. If there is a balance, it is
settled for in shipments of bullion goods again. Yet even this amount
is so small as to bear no comparison to the bulk of exchanges and is
almost entirely negligible. Perhaps more enlightened generations will
laugh at the notion that the more goods we send out the richer we are.
It may be appropriate right here to answer a correspondent who asks
us to explain the mechanism of international exchange. It is very
simple. It may be described in a few sentences as follows: A merchant
in the United States sends goods to a merchant in France Unless
credits have been previously arranged, the shipper takes to a bank the
bill of lading, with a draft on the buyer for the amount of the bill.
The draft with the bill of lading attached is forwarded to the bank's
correspondent in Europe for collection from the buyer. The foreign
correspondent, being in possession of the money, place it to the
credit of the American bank, which in turn place the proceeds to the
credit of the shipper.
|