3 ms·

It helps to quote who you're replying to when you reply with this much effort; it keeps your reply accurate. Anyway, https://www.jstor.org/stable/2646642 http

by bryant 2y ago

It helps to quote who you're replying to when you reply with this much effort; it keeps your reply accurate. Anyway, https://www.jstor.org/stable/2646642 https://www.jstor.org/stable/2646642 I'm not as engaged in this topic as you are, likely because I'm not as ideologically fixated on it. But the idea that the Tariff Act had a significant negative impact is well analyzed (e.g above), hence the consensus. Wish you the best.

skippyboxedhero 2y ago
Did you read that paper before you linked it? Imports fell 40% and it is a small part of that fall. And, as the paper explains, the actual economic impact was quite limited in the context of the Great Depression and the financial system shutting down completely. The reason why I am engaged is because I have a postgrad in economic history. Within economic history, SH is generally understood as something where the evidence is often misunderstood by journalists (for the reasons I have explained), and this filters down (the Irwin paper is somewhat notorious for this because Irwin is a trade economist who is often very careful, because trade economics is often non-conclusive, and you hear the conclusion from people who have never read or actually understood the paper...you may not have noticed but I alluded to this paper in my original argument, it is that well-known that people will misunderstand it). The paper you have linked is usually cited as evidence for SH having a limited effect - https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=269524 https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=269524 is one among many examples. The issue is that people who haven't studied GD in depth do not understand any part of the context. They just do a quick Google search and then act as if this is the same thing as prolonged study.

3 ms·

It helps to quote who you're replying to when you reply with this much effort; it keeps your reply accurate. Anyway, https://www.jstor.org/stable/2646642 http

by bryant 2y ago

skippyboxedhero 2y ago
Did you read that paper before you linked it? Imports fell 40% and it is a small part of that fall. And, as the paper explains, the actual economic impact was quite limited in the context of the Great Depression and the financial system shutting down completely. The reason why I am engaged is because I have a postgrad in economic history. Within economic history, SH is generally understood as something where the evidence is often misunderstood by journalists (for the reasons I have explained), and this filters down (the Irwin paper is somewhat notorious for this because Irwin is a trade economist who is often very careful, because trade economics is often non-conclusive, and you hear the conclusion from people who have never read or actually understood the paper...you may not have noticed but I alluded to this paper in my original argument, it is that well-known that people will misunderstand it). The paper you have linked is usually cited as evidence for SH having a limited effect - https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=269524 https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=269524 is one among many examples. The issue is that people who haven't studied GD in depth do not understand any part of the context. They just do a quick Google search and then act as if this is the same thing as prolonged study.