Italy ............ 68 562 334 Aust.-Hung ....... 7 487 457 Switzerland ...... 44 287 200 Spain ............ 10 168 153 Sweden ........... 26 163 129 Denmark .......... 16 191 165 Norway ........... 58 101 64
Canada ........... 34 298 222 China ............ 43 254 178 Turkey ........... 59 135 85
COUNTRIES HAVING EXCESS OF EXPORTS OF MERCHANDISE
Imports. Exports. Excess % United States .... 1312 1638 25 Russia ........... 436 542 24
British Colonies . 558 615 5 British India .... 418 486 16 Australasia ...... 242 302 25 Japan ............ 196 206 5 Cuba ............. 84 116 40 Mexico ........... 78 115 42 San Domingo ...... 5 10 100
Argentina ........ 263 353 34 Brazil ........... 172 214 24 Chile ............ 98 116 18 Uruguay .......... 35 37 6 Bolivia .......... 21 24 14 Venezuela .... 10 15 50
#-- 7. Balance of merchandise movements.# The first group evidently consists of the older, creditor countries which are drawing some of the income of their investments from abroad each year in the form of food and of raw materials of many kinds. The second group includes countries of very diverse conditions, possibly all having some investments abroad; Italy receives large imports in return for the services of many Italians working in foreign countries, and the three Scandinavian countries (especially Norway) carry on a large commerce for other nations which is paid for in these ways. The excess of imports in the third group probably is the result of new investments that were being made in Canada by English and American capitalists, in Turkey especially by Germans, and in China by Americans and Europeans.
The countries in the second column are doubtless on the whole debtors, but in varying degrees. The excess exports of some are insufficient even to pay all the current interest, and they are borrowing still more (possibly the British colonies, Japan and several South American countries); others have ceased to borrow and are simply paying interest; whereas the United States at least with its excess of exports was at this time both paying interest and getting out of debt.
With the outbreak of the war in 1914 the United States began rapidly buying up its foreign-held securities, and events are fast making it a creditor nation. Its imports must therefore in future more nearly equal if not exceed its exports, the actual outcome being dependent as well on various other items in the balance as on those here considered.
-- 8. #Cancelation of foreign indebtedness.# In the international business of any two important countries to-day, such as England and America, the number of credit and debit transactions is enormous. If each trader had to attend to the forwarding of the means of payment for his purchases he would, of course, deduct from the amount of his indebtedness the amount due him from his foreign correspondent, and might from time to time "remit" the balance in the form of a shipment of gold. This simple offsetting and cancelation of debits and credits would greatly limit the amount of gold that would have to be shipped.
But still, under such conditions, there must be a very large number of shipments of gold by different individuals, and a large proportion of these shipments would be going in opposite directions at the same time. Now a merchant in New York called M may have a balance to pay in London to X and at the same time a merchant in London called Y have a balance to pay in New York to a man called N. If M can buy from N his claim in the form of an order, draft, or bill of exchange, and send it to X, the latter may through his bank collect the sum from Y. In this way a further cancelation of indebtedness would occur.
When all persons having either debits or credits to be paid in New York and in London, respectively, are dealing with the banks in these cities, and the banks and special exchange brokers are constantly buying and selling these bills, a market is created for London exchange in New York (and conversely in London), and a much easier and more nearly complete cancelation of indebtedness results. In effect, all the debits and credits between the two countries are merged into one big ledger balance, and the international shipment of gold bullion finally made is just the amount needed to balance the accounts payable at the time. Industrial indebtedness is represented in various forms: bills of lading for goods shipped, drafts made by the creditor on his debtor for goods shipped or property sold, checks or letters of credit for travelers, bonds and notes public and private. These are the objects dealt in by the bankers who are the agents to carry on the work of exchange.
The balance of foreign exchanges is of essentially the same nature as the domestic cancelation of indebtedness. It is going on constantly between the two merchants in the same town, between two banks in the same town who represent groups of merchants, between men in neighboring towns, and between distant states like New York and California.[8] The price of exchange to the individual is reduced by the specializing of the business in the hands of a few dealers, permitting the cancelation of indebtedness or offsetting of exchange, and greatly reducing the amount of bullion to be transported in making the payments. The cost to the bank of providing this exchange for its customers varies as conditions change, but in any case is not great, so that in domestic business when any charge is made it is usually at a fixed rate, and is mainly for the service.
-- 9. #Par of exchange.# Foreign exchange from America to Europe is, however, in two features different from domestic exchange: (a) the cost of shipment of gold is greater; (b) the monetary units of the two countries usually differ in name, weight, and fineness, and sometimes in materials. We may define foreign exchange as the purchase and sale of the right to receive a given kind and weight of metal or its monetary equivalent in current funds at a specified time and place.
_Par of exchange_ between two countries using the same metal as a standard is the number of units of the standard coin of the one country that contains the same amount of fine metal as the standard coin of the other country. There is no fixed par of exchange between gold-using and silver-using countries: par of exchange between them fluctuates with changes in the comparative values of the two metals.
The _gold shipping points_ for importing or exporting gold are respectively par of exchange plus or minus the cost of moving the actual metal. These points vary with means of transportation and communication. The par of exchange between New York and London being nearly $4.866 and the cost of expressing and insuring a gold pound between New York and London being approximately $.02,[9] the shipping point for the export of gold from New York is $4.886 and for the import of gold to New York is $4.846. At these upper and lower limits, there is a motive for shipping gold as a commodity.
When large sales have been made to Europe and credits are accumulating in New York and the importation of gold is imminent or already begun, the claims are bought by bankers in New York at less than par. At such a time one needing to remit a sum to London can buy exchange for less than par, for every such draft remitted reduces London's indebtedness and, by so much, the need of shipping gold to this country. As a rule then, accumulating credits here mean a low rate of exchange, accumulating debits a high rate of exchange from this to the foreign country.
These are the merest rudiments of the subject. The many problems arising, such as the adjustment of foreign credits to changing needs, and such as arbitrage (the readjustment of the rates of exchange prevailing among different financial centers) make foreign exchange both a complex science and a difficult art.
-- 10. #International monetary balance and price-levels.# The balance of all accounts for or against a country (including new loans, current interest, and repayments) must thus eventually be settled in money.
This cannot fail to affect the general level of prices in both countries, tho this is brought about often only in indirect and gradual ways. The flow of money out of a country causes the loan market of a country to tighten (interest and discount rates to rise) in proportion as the reserves of the banks are reduced. Then "general prices" begin to fall.[10] When prices fall, imports decline, as the country is not so good a place in which to sell: when prices rise, imports increase, as it is a better place in which to sell. The opposite effect is produced on exports, and thus in a short time the national credits and debits are again brought into equilibrium. A slight movement of money in either direction is enough to influence prices and set in motion forces to counteract a further flow of money. Decade after decade the circulating medium of leading countries changes very slightly in amount, and the fluctuations in its amounts during periods of so-called "favorable balance of trade" and of "unfavorable balance of trade" are only the smallest fraction of the value of goods passing through the ports of the country.
It is therefore absurd to imagine, as is sometimes done, that a country could, by continually importing goods, be drained of all its money, or that by any possible set of devices it could forever have an excess of exports to be paid for by a continual inflow of gold.
Long before either of such movements could go far, the automatic readjustment of prices would inevitably check it, and secure and retain for each country its due portion of the money.
[Footnote 1: See Vol. I, ch. 17, sec. 10.]
[Footnote 2: See Vol. I, ch. 5, secs. 1 and 7.]
[Footnote 3: See Vol. I, ch. 6, sec. 11, on the origin of markets.]
[Footnote 4: See Vol. I, chs. 36 and 37.]
[Footnote 5: Recall ch. 4, in general, on the nature of monetary demand.]
[Footnote 6: See Vol. 1 for numerous statements of the effects of varying quantities of agents upon the economy of utilization; e.g., pp. 138, 163, 164, 213, 228, and chs. 34 and 35 entire.]
[Footnote 7: This theory has usually been presented under the name of "the doctrine of comparative costs." The word "costs" is very misleading in this connection because it is now always applied to enterpriser's outlay. It seems best, therefore, to replace it in this phrase by the word "advantages." Of course, it _never_ can be true that an article can be "profitably" imported when its monetary costs (all things considered) are higher in the exporting than in the importing country. Indeed, the importation of any article is proof conclusive that the importer thinks that the monetary costs of an article would be higher in the importing than in the exporting country. See further, ch. 15, secs. 11 and 13 (note).]
[Footnote 8: See ch. 7, sec. 7.]
[Footnote 9: This varies also with conditions; after the outbreak of the war in 1914 it was for a time as high as $.05 because of high war rates of insurance.]
[Footnote 10: The connection between a high rate of interest and falling price is a dynamic phenomenon of a very temporary nature.
In long-time static conditions the general level of prices and the prevailing rate of interest are dependent on entirely different sets of forces. See on the theory of interest, Vol. I, p. 308. In long-time movements of prices, in contrast with brief changes due to foreign trade such as are referred to above, high rates of interest are connected with rising prices, and _vice versa._ See above, ch. 6, sec.
8, on fluctuating price-levels and the interest rate.]
CHAPTER 14
THE POLICY OF A PROTECTIVE TARIFF
-- 1. Military and political motives for interference with trade. -- 2.
Revenue and protective tariffs. -- 3. Growth of a protective system.
-- 4. The infant-industry argument. -- 5. The home-market argument.
-- 6. The "two-profits" argument. -- 7. The balance-of-trade argument.
-- 8. The claim that protection raises wages. -- 9. Tariffs and unemployment. -- 10. Exports and exhaustion of the soil. -- 11. Protection as a monopoly measure. -- 12. Harm of sudden tariff reductions.
-- 1. #Military and political motives for interference with trade.# The considerations set forth in the last chapter raise a strong presumption in favor of the sovereign state permitting its citizens to trade freely across its boundaries, as the best way to further their own prosperity and, on the whole and in the long run, that of the nation. Indeed, this presumption and belief has been held by nearly all serious students of the question, with more or less of modifications and qualifications, ever since Adam Smith published his work on the "Wealth of Nations" in 1776.[1] But in conflict with this belief has been the all but unanimous policy of nations from early times, throughout the Middle Ages, and down to this day, of interposing some special hindrances (of varying degrees and kinds) to this kind of trade. Sometimes this has been done by prohibitions, but more often by taxes imposed upon either imports or exports. Sometimes the attempt is made to justify the policy of governmental interference with foreign trade by arguments which crumble before the slightest examination, and again it is admitted that free trade is true in theory, but it is declared to be false in practice. The latter view is not to be entertained for a moment. If free trade in theory (as an explanation) is complete and true, it will in practice (as a plan of action) be sound and workable. In truth, however, the practical policy of governmental interference with foreign trade has always in part rested on other than the simple economic grounds.
Interference with free trade with the foreigner has always been in large measure due to political motives. In every petty medieval state or self-governing city, the aim was to make the economic boundaries coincide as nearly as possible with the political boundaries. Except for the trade in a few articles of comparative luxury this aim was at that time nearly attainable. The peasantry surrounding a fortified town and enjoying its protection were compelled to trade there. Down to our own time it has seemed to statesmen expedient to forbid or discourage trade that might nourish the economic power of future enemies. Sometimes governments have used embargoes, bounties, or tariffs as weapons to injure the trade of other nations and to secure diplomatic or commercial concessions. Often they have sought by tariffs to encourage the building of ships and the manufacture of armaments and of all kinds of munitions by private enterprise within their own borders, even when the immediate cost of these products was greater than if they were purchased abroad. In such cases it is always a question whether an outright expenditure would not be better, whether the government could not build its own arsenals and shipyards more economically than it can foster private enterprise by means of a protective tariff. However, the political (or military) argument for protection recognizes that it is in itself a costly (not a profitable) policy, and that the cost is only justified on the grounds that military necessity warrants the outlay.
The military argument as applied to the preparation of ships and munitions has no application to a tariff on those articles which have no bearing upon military power. But the most recent application of science and the mechanical arts to the uses of war has given new significance to a larger policy of industrial preparedness for military purposes. The year 1914 doubtless ushered in for the world a new epoch of protective and discriminatory tariff legislation determined by political rather than by direct economic considerations.
-- 2. #Revenue and protective tariffs.# An important distinction in principle is to be made between a tariff for revenue and a tariff for protection. A _revenue tariff_ is a schedule of duties on goods entering or leaving a country, so arranged that the collection of taxes causes the least possible disturbance to domestic industry.
Speaking generally, the duties may be on either imports or exports; but, as export duties are unconstitutional in the United States, our tariff discussions are concerned only with import duties. The most completely revenue-yielding tariff is one touching only articles which, even at the higher prices are not in the least to be produced profitably in the home country. A _protective tariff_ is a schedule of import duties so arranged as to give appreciably higher prices to some domestic enterprises than they could obtain with free trade. It shuts out some foreign goods which would otherwise enter, an in so far it "protects" the domestic producer from the foreign competitors who would sell at lower prices than those at which he can or will sell.
In other words, "protection" means governmental interference with the freedom of trade.
The distinction between revenue and protective tariffs, thus clear in principle, is not always easy to make in practice. It does not lie in the intention of the taxing power, but in the actual effects produced.
Most tariffs combine the characteristics both of revenue and of protective measures. A tariff that reduces imports but does not cut them off entirely may be called either a revenue tariff with incidental protection or a protective tariff with incidental revenue.
The difference is one of degree. But notice particularly that the two features of protection and of revenue are mutually exclusive. To the extent that one is present the other is impossible. A tariff rate that in whole or in part excludes the foreign article to that extent affords "protection" but does not yield revenue. Whenever the government collects a cent of tariff taxes, the domestic producer in so far and as respects that unit of goods is unprotected. Likewise, whenever any domestic producer enjoys "protection" in respect to any unit of goods, importation is in so far prohibited and the government is deprived of any revenue whatever derived from the production and sale of that unit of goods.
-- 3. #Growth of a protective system.# The protective policy developed at first accidentally, as it were, out of the practice of levying taxes for revenue only. Tolls, dues (or duties), customs (that is, in former times the customary dues paid by merchants, now the dues fixed by law), tariffs (that is, schedules or lists of rates of duties) were at first intended to raise revenues for the sovereign, the city, or the state. The unintended, and to some degree inevitable, result of the taxation of goods in commerce, whether imports or exports, is to prevent and discourage trade and to raise the prices of the goods imported. Any change in tariff duties, therefore, at once alters the previously existing adjustment of profits and of industries in a country.
The first effect of the tariff is the same as that of any new factor in enterpriser's cost; the same, for example, as that of a new domestic tax on an article or as that of a rise of freight rates--the domestic price of the taxed article tends to rise. Other results then follow. If the article cannot, even at the higher price, be produced within the country (as in the cases of oranges, spices, and coffee in England, Norway, and Sweden), its consumption is reduced. The lessening of demand may, however, depress somewhat the price in the producing country. But as such a tariff does not increase home production of the taxed article, it is therefore for revenue, not for protection.
But if the article can be profitably produced in the importing country at the new price, "home industries" will start. Where the transportation charges are low, as on the coasts and on the main lines of railways, some imported goods may be bought, while farther inland where transportation charges are higher home production of some or all grades of such goods may take place. If the whole demand at home is supplied and all imports stop, therewith cease all revenues to the government from that source. A completely protective tariff is completely prohibitive.
Experience abundantly shows that, with a few exceptions, due to climate and natural resources, it is impossible to put into effect the most moderate schedule of duties without the increase in price at once causing some men to shift their occupations, and to begin producing articles of the kinds that have risen in price. At once appears a group of "protected industries," the owners of which are dependent for the safety and profits of their investments, and the workmen in which are dependent for the security of their present jobs (possibly for the chance to continue the pursuit of highly skilled trades) on the continuance, if not the increase, of the existing tariff rates. A tariff may be adopted mainly from stress of financial need (as in our own history in 1789 or in 1861), but its modification or repeal cannot be decided by fiscal considerations. The "incidental protection" it affords has created a wealthy and influential group of employers and a large body of employees who are irresistibly tempted to exercise their influence in politics almost solely in favor of continuing and of increasing the rates to the sacrifice of the higher civic life of their communities. Of course the beneficiaries of the tariff usually believe sincerely that it is indispensable for the prosperity of the country as a whole, and they can do much to persuade others to the same opinion. This commercial motive for maintaining existing protective tariffs explains in large part their wide prevalence, whatever other reasons may be adduced in their justification.
-- 4. #The infant-industry argument.# Most free-trade writers concede a limited validity to the claim that protection may be used to encourage infant industries and thus diversify the industries of the country. If the natural resources of a land are adapted to an industry, it may be called into being earlier by a fostering protective tariff. This is merely anticipating and hastening the natural order of progress. In the American colonies the manufactures of such goods as iron, cloth, hats, ships, and furniture sprang up and continued not only without "protection," but despite numerous harassing trade restrictions made in the interest of English merchants. Can it be doubted that many of these industries would have developed and flourished after the adoption of the Constitution with no other favoring influences than those of rich resources and of economy in freights? In the Mississippi Valley since 1880 natural gas, abundant coal, ore, and timber have made possible a great growth of industries without protection against the Eastern states. Industries capable of eventual self-support must in most cases naturally appear in due time. Economic forces will bring them out. The protective system has often been likened to a hothouse, anticipating the season by a few weeks and at great cost. The question is whether the mere possession of the hothouse is a luxury worth the price, if meantime the products can be got more cheaply by trade.
English manufactures flourished in the nineteenth century because they were well established, had excellent coal supplies, great stores of iron ore, and low-paid labor which did not have the opportunity of better alternatives, as did the American workman. If America had imported more (it would not have been all) of her iron and coal, the English mines would have begun to shown signs of exhaustion earlier, and America's advantage surely would have asserted itself in time. Her iron manufactures undoubtedly were hastened--they cannot truly be said to have been created--by the protective tariff.