i don't know that it necessarily leads to smoot- hawley. there are number of republicans who are basically free-market republicans. i don't think this is a uniform kind of problem. i think that what you look at is other forms of nationalism. and other ways of shutting off globalism and free markets and so forth. i would argue that the united states has really benefited in mode -- enormously in terms of what other countries have done in terms of opening markets and investment. it has encouraged democracy and other parts of the world. i think what you have to look out for is that there could be policies that would reverse that. i don't really see tariffs as rising at this point right now. we live in a much more complex world than we did then in the sense that you can have regulatory barriers. we have lots of other things that we could discuss. wto investigations ago beyond the regular discussions. there could be areas where we could have that kind of resurgence. >> sometime in the late 16th century, they control the port of nagasaki. i don't

smoot hawley didn't raise tariffs as much as earlier tariff bills. the underwood tariff in 1916, tariff rates rose much higher under those bills than smoot hawley, but all of those bills represented how congress and the president set trade policy, through completely changing the tariff act, which is really kind of a dinosaur these days. we stopped doing that with the reciprocal trade agreements when fdr was president and looked as reciprocity as part of trade and that then became improved under the trade expansion act of 1962 and then even better ex-in my view, under the trade act of 1974. so congress does not really respond through -- we are looking at other of fews for getting the same result: the question about financial services services and free trade and who needs free trade, i can tell you shortly after 9/11, president bush was very interested in negotiating free trade agreements with countries in the gulf, in the middle east, for other injuries. was hired by a central bank which had a tifa, trade and investment framework ask the administratio

smoot hawley didn't raise tariffs as m

charlie you were trying to make the point, basically we'll get in some kind of smoot-hawley tariff environmentort of? sort of? trish: a la, 1930s. that will cause the global economy and our economy to shrink? >> sort of? it was in the me. a lawmaker representing a state where he presumably wants people to work, making the point to donald trump, if you do what you say you will do you will hurt people in our state. trish: okay. >> can i just this out. nafta is not the reason why plants are closing in the industrial, formerly rust belt. it is just not. it is, i'm not saying a perfect law but it is not the reason why we have this sort of economic dislocation. now there is lots of reasons why. i'm not saying it is perfect law but anybody that posits the nafta is the root cause of this doesn't understand basic 101 economics. it is not even, like macroeconomics to a high level. this is very basic. nafta has done some bad things. trish: we lost 700,000 jobs. >> because of nafta? because of nafta? trish: primarily because of nafta. charlie i want to go back to the tariff argument here. >> only idealogu

on, i can remember ever being in a meeting with jack what he didn't mention the fact that the smoot-hawleytariff in 1930 was one of the major contributing factors to the great depression. and now i'm reading in the paper the administration is threatening, the tears on aluminum and steel for example. how do we square this? this is oppressive because you remember this. >> i don't want to go too far in that but i will explain. so as we view the situation in the u.s. for workers at the median level, workers in need many states were feeling the pressure of unfair trade practice abroad, some of which came about from trade agreements that were struck at times and then not implemented. if we think about china, for example, it liberalized into the world, until the point that he got into the world trade organization. that organization doesn't really have the strength to stand up to china subsidized industrial policies, which is an explicit set of goals to take over global manufacturing sectors as well as services sector. so that went forward into an agreement that many countries entered into, thinki