In his presidential campaign in 1928, Herbert Hoover promised to help impoverished farmers by increasing tariffs on agricultural products; after the election, he also asked Congress to reduce tariffs on industrial goods. In April 1929, well before Black Thursday, U.S. Representative Reed Smoot, a Republican from Utah, introduced a bill that passed the House in May. The bill increased agricultural and industrial tariffs at levels that had not been seen for a century. This was a relatively benign beginning of what would become one of the most tragic policy measures of the 1930s. Within a few months of the bill being passed in the Senate as the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act, other countries in response raised their own trade barriers, which started a vicious circle of contracting world trade flows and economic activity, and rising unemployment from 1930 to 1933.

Politicians, pundits and economists are all forecasting horrific impacts on the U.S. economy as sequestration hits Friday. The basis for this view is the standard — Keynesian — claim that spending cuts slow economic growth, perhaps even causing a recession.

As part of our series looking at the future of American energy, The Financialist spoke to Osmar Abib, global head of Credit Suisse’s oil and gas investment banking group, about the rise of natural gas production in the U.S., thanks in large part to the development of shale gas fields. 

BERKELEY – America’s recent presidential election answered the question of whether an increase in revenues will be part of the country’s long-run deficit-reduction plan. The answer is yes: there is now bipartisan agreement on the need for a “balanced” approach that includes revenue increases and spending cuts.
But there are still deep political and ideological divisions about how additional revenues should be raised and who should pay higher taxes. If a preliminary agreement on these questions is not reached by the end of the year, the economy faces a “fiscal cliff” of $600 billion in automatic tax increases and spending cuts that will shave about 4% from GDP and trigger a recession.

NEW HAVEN – During the United States’ recent presidential election campaign, public-opinion polls consistently showed that the economy – and especially unemployment – was voters’ number one concern. The Republican challenger, Mitt Romney, sought to capitalize on the issue, asserting: “The president’s plans haven’t worked – he doesn’t have a plan to get the economy going.”

STANFORD – As America’s elections approach, with President Barack Obama slightly in front of his Republican challenger, former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney, pollsters still rate the races for control of the presidency and the United States Senate too close to call, with the House of Representatives likely to remain in Republican hands. The differences between the candidates are considerable, and highly consequential for American economic policy and the global economy, although enactment of their programs will depend on the makeup of Congress.

Were he still alive, Ronald Reagan would be 101 this year. I asked four experts—Reagan’s budget director, James Miller; Reagan’s chief economic adviser, Murray Weidenbaum; and Reagan biographers Lou Cannon and Craig Shirley—what the Gipper would say about taxes if he were again a young man of 69, accepting the Republican nomination for president.

In early 2001, Paul O’Neill, the new secretary of the Treasury for a new president, began work on a plan for radical tax reform. He wanted simpler forms and fewer deductions, which would make it easy for people to prepare their taxes and cost the government less to process them. He presented a 5-inch-thick binder of research to a senior White House official. “Don’t ever let that see the light of day,” O’Neill says he was told. George W. Bush didn’t want to deliver tax reform. He wanted to deliver the tax cuts he’d promised as a candidate.

NEW HAVEN – In September 1998, during the depths of the Asian financial crisis, Alan Greenspan, the United States Federal Reserve’s chairman at the time, had a simple message: the US is not an oasis of prosperity in an otherwise struggling world. Greenspan’s point is even closer to the mark today than it was back then.

CAMBRIDGE – It is with regret that we announce the death of inflation targeting. The monetary-policy regime, known as IT to friends, evidently passed away in September 2008. The lack of an official announcement until now attests to the esteem in which it was held, its usefulness as an ornament of credibility for central banks, and fears that there might be no good candidates to succeed it as the preferred anchor for monetary policy.