The circumstances behind the Smoot-Hawley act and the reciprocal retributive tariffs are not even similar.
Yes, they are both tariffs, but that's about where the similarity ends.
Nothing in SH reduced the tariff if the foreign nation reduced theirs.
The reason it was an economic problem was other nations retaliated against our tariffs.
If you're going to cite SH, then you need to get the roles straight.
We are retaliating against the rest of the world's version of SH, NOT passing one of our own.
Did you see the chart that Trump had up with the various tariffs? Where we're going to put about half what they put on us?
Have you seen a refutation of that chart? One that says, "China isn't really charging a 67% tariff on US goods, it's really x%." That 67% is the Chinese Smoot-Hawley act.
Most of the nations on that chart are in serious discussions about getting off that chart.
That, you economic and historically illiterate morons is the fucking goal.
Opening up THEIR markets to OUR goods so WE can make some money for US for a change.
Or did you think the trade imbalances were entirely because our goods were no good?
The EU is getting off fucking light with just a 20% tariff, by the way. The maze of entry barriers to their market is dizzying and mercurial. The Ur-example is Boeing v Airbus. If the federal government subsidized Boeing the way Airbus is, Boeing would be barred from European skies. But when we threatened to bar Airbus planes because of their subsidization, again Boeing would be barred from EU skies. They've been having their cake and eating too while we stood watch against the Soviet Union and Russians for them.
But go ahead, tell me you don't know fuck all about this topic without saying you don't know fuck all about this topic.