What are you suggestions to leadership this morning on how you should manage the proposed tariff’s on goods from Mexico, China and Canada? – Roger Blumberg (LinkedIn Poll)
Here is an excerpt from a post I wrote in 2009 at the height of the Buy American controversy – https://bit.ly/3PJel4l
“Upcoming posts will examine the differences between the economic climate in 1930 and 2009 to determine if there are indeed parallels to be drawn and used to achieve a collective best result outcome.
I will also examine the differences between the Smoot-Stonehouse Tariff Act and the current Buy American requirements associated with the present U.S. Recovery Act. Is it as many fear protectionism revisited, or is it more Autarky?”
After many interviews over the years with everyone from Canada’s Trade Minister Stockwell Day to U.S. gubernatorial candidates and economic experts, I have come to one conclusion:
Initiatives, policies, or plans like the ones above and the one you talk about today, Roger Blumberg, are politically motivated with economic consequences.
Ask yourself, did the 2009 Buy American policy achieve success?
The 2009 Buy American policy can be considered a partial success, as it provided much-needed economic support during a crisis but faced significant challenges in terms of cost, implementation, and international relations. Its impact has informed subsequent debates on balancing domestic priorities with global trade commitments.
Was the 1930 Smoot-Stonehouse Tariff Act considered a success?
The Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act was largely a failure, achieving none of its intended objectives and instead contributing to the economic hardship of the Great Depression. Its passage and the resulting fallout underscore the risks of protectionism and the importance of maintaining open international trade relations during economic crises.
What impact did both plans have on domestic supply chains?
The 2009 Buy American policy had mixed effects on domestic supply chains. While it provided a much-needed boost to U.S. manufacturing and localized supply chains, it also led to higher costs, project delays, and trade tensions. The policy served as both a stimulus during the financial crisis and a lesson in balancing protectionism with the realities of modern, globalized supply chains.
The Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act inadvertently disrupted domestic supply chains by raising costs, reducing access to critical imports, and shrinking export markets due to retaliatory tariffs. While intended to protect domestic industries, it led to inefficiencies, reduced competitiveness, and greater economic hardship during the Great Depression. These outcomes serve as a cautionary tale about the unintended consequences of protectionist policies on supply chains.
I will have to do some research into this recent “plan.” However, a better question is the impact on domestic supply chains and what to do about it.
30
Procurement Insights
Impact of tariffs on supply chains – 1930, 2009, 2024
Posted on November 26, 2024
0
What are you suggestions to leadership this morning on how you should manage the proposed tariff’s on goods from Mexico, China and Canada? – Roger Blumberg (LinkedIn Poll)
Here is an excerpt from a post I wrote in 2009 at the height of the Buy American controversy – https://bit.ly/3PJel4l
“Upcoming posts will examine the differences between the economic climate in 1930 and 2009 to determine if there are indeed parallels to be drawn and used to achieve a collective best result outcome.
I will also examine the differences between the Smoot-Stonehouse Tariff Act and the current Buy American requirements associated with the present U.S. Recovery Act. Is it as many fear protectionism revisited, or is it more Autarky?”
After many interviews over the years with everyone from Canada’s Trade Minister Stockwell Day to U.S. gubernatorial candidates and economic experts, I have come to one conclusion:
Initiatives, policies, or plans like the ones above and the one you talk about today, Roger Blumberg, are politically motivated with economic consequences.
Ask yourself, did the 2009 Buy American policy achieve success?
The 2009 Buy American policy can be considered a partial success, as it provided much-needed economic support during a crisis but faced significant challenges in terms of cost, implementation, and international relations. Its impact has informed subsequent debates on balancing domestic priorities with global trade commitments.
Was the 1930 Smoot-Stonehouse Tariff Act considered a success?
The Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act was largely a failure, achieving none of its intended objectives and instead contributing to the economic hardship of the Great Depression. Its passage and the resulting fallout underscore the risks of protectionism and the importance of maintaining open international trade relations during economic crises.
What impact did both plans have on domestic supply chains?
The 2009 Buy American policy had mixed effects on domestic supply chains. While it provided a much-needed boost to U.S. manufacturing and localized supply chains, it also led to higher costs, project delays, and trade tensions. The policy served as both a stimulus during the financial crisis and a lesson in balancing protectionism with the realities of modern, globalized supply chains.
The Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act inadvertently disrupted domestic supply chains by raising costs, reducing access to critical imports, and shrinking export markets due to retaliatory tariffs. While intended to protect domestic industries, it led to inefficiencies, reduced competitiveness, and greater economic hardship during the Great Depression. These outcomes serve as a cautionary tale about the unintended consequences of protectionist policies on supply chains.
I will have to do some research into this recent “plan.” However, a better question is the impact on domestic supply chains and what to do about it.
30
Share this:
Related