Donald Trump has argued that Kamala Harris’s economic plan would lead to a devastating economic depression akin to the Great Depression of 1929. However, a key aspect of his economic strategy involves imposing steep tariffs on imports, a move that could potentially trigger a depression, rather than the proposals Harris has put forth. History serves as a testament to this possibility.

The downturn of the market in October 1929 is widely recognized as the event that marked the beginning of the Great Depression. Yet, the market saw some recovery in the first half of 1930, before President Herbert Hoover signed the Smoot-Hawley tariff act in June that year. This legislation raised tariffs by 20 percent on a broad range of industrial and agricultural goods. Despite being an attempt to shield U.S. producers and reverse the economic decline, the act instead exacerbated and prolonged the crisis on a global scale. Global trade plummeted from $3 trillion in 1929 to less than $1 trillion by 1933.

The negative impact of the Smoot-Hawley tariffs is evident in several areas:

– Increasing the cost of living: Tariffs acted as a tax on American importers, raising the prices of imported goods for consumers.

– Injuring U.S. exports: Other nations responded to the tariffs with their own tariff increases, severely harming American manufacturers and farmers.

– Contributing to additional bank failures: Tariffs’ effects on the economy resulted in more bank collapses, particularly in agricultural regions.

– Decreasing domestic consumption: People had to cut back on purchasing goods, both imported and domestic, leading to reduced sales and lower prices for U.S. manufacturers and farmers.

If Trump continues with his tariff proposals, the consequences could mirror or surpass those of Herbert Hoover’s decisions, causing significant harm to American industries, workers, farmers, and ranchers.

Additionally, Trump’s beliefs about the impact of tariffs and their fairness with trading partners are flawed. Existing U.S. tariffs were established through agreements with other nations post-World War II, guaranteeing reduced tariffs on American goods. Any increase in U.S. tariffs could result in retaliatory measures from other countries, severely affecting American exports.

Trump’s suggested 200 percent tariff on John Deere machinery from Mexico contradicts the trade deal he negotiated in 2018 with Mexico and Canada. This move would allow Mexico to impose equivalent tariffs on American goods, potentially negatively impacting American farmers’ access to the Mexican market.

It is important to distinguish between tariffs addressing unfair trade practices and those applied across the board for protectionism or revenue purposes. While some tariffs are justified, unilateral tariffs have the potential to be catastrophic, rather than beneficial.

Trump’s tariff strategy could potentially cost more American manufacturing jobs than it aims to save. Many essential inputs for American manufacturers come from abroad, and increased tariffs could jeopardize jobs in numerous industries, such as confectionery production.

Whether Trump’s tariffs lead to reduced imports or generate revenue, both objectives present challenges. The tariffs implemented on Chinese goods in 2019 were met with retaliatory measures from China, causing losses for American farmers. This revenue collected has not been used to introduce new programs but to offset these losses.

In conclusion, Trump’s tariff plan poses a direct threat to American jobs and the nation’s standing in the global economy, which is too great a risk to take amidst uncertain global economic and political landscapes.