Connect with us

Personal Finance

How Smoot-Hawley Tariff sparked the ‘mother of all trade wars’

Published

on

QINGDAO, CHINA – NOVEMBER 8, 2023 – Container ships frequently enter and exit the Qianwan Container Terminal of Qingdao Port in Qingdao, Shandong Province, China, Nov 8, 2023. (Photo by Costfoto/NurPhoto via Getty Images)

Nurphoto | Nurphoto | Getty Images

A trade war is brewing — and, if history is any guide, the U.S. economy may not be too happy about it.

President Donald Trump levied a 10% tariff on all imports from China starting Tuesday. In response, China retaliated with its own tariffs of up to 15% on select U.S. imports, starting Feb. 10.

Experts believe these are just the initial salvos of a broader trade war between the two nations. 

Meanwhile, the U.S. is on the precipice of a trade spat with Canada and Mexico. Trump has also threatened to impose tariffs on the European Union — and, if that happens, the nations have vowed retribution.

“I will never support the idea of fighting allies,” Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen said Monday. “But of course, if the U.S. puts tough terms on Europe, we need a collective and robust response.”

More from Personal Finance:
Trump moves to abolish the education department
The Fed holds rates steady. What that means for you
IRS announces the start of the 2025 tax season

The current animosity bears many similarities to an earlier episode in U.S. history — the Tariff Act of 1930 — which triggered an all-out trade war and exacerbated the Great Depression, according to economic historians. 

The law, known as the Smoot-Hawley Tariff, was “one of the most controversial tariff acts ever enacted by Congress,” Doug Irwin, an economics professor at Dartmouth College and past president of the Economic History Association, wrote in 2020.

It was also the last instance of a trade war involving the U.S., prior to Trump’s first term, said Kris James Mitchener, an economics professor at Santa Clara University who studies economic history and political economy.

Smoot-Hawley sparked “the mother of all trade wars,” Mitchener said.

What was the Smoot-Hawley Tariff?

Hawley (left) and Reed Smoot in April 1929, shortly before the Smoot–Hawley Tariff Act passed the House

Source: Library of Congress

If the Smoot-Hawley Tariff sounds vaguely familiar, it may be thanks to pop culture: The 1986 movie “Ferris Bueller’s Day Off” has a memorable scene in which a high school teacher drones on in a crawling monotone voice about the tariffs.

Among Smoot-Hawley’s chief aims was to safeguard U.S. farmers, who had expanded agricultural production during WWI but suffered after the war as European production came back online and prices collapsed, Mitchener said.

However, Congress expanded the scope of the tariffs considerably, extending beyond agriculture to include all sectors of the economy. The law got its name from its chief Republican supporters in Congress: Rep. Willis Hawley of Oregon, chair of the tax-writing House Ways and Means Committee, and Sen. Reed Smoot of Utah, who chaired the Senate Finance Committee.

Smoot-Hawley was “broad,” putting tariffs on roughly 25% of all goods imported to the U.S. — about 800 to 900 different types of goods, Mitchener said. 

If the U.S. puts tough terms on Europe, we need a collective and robust response.

Mette Frederiksen

prime minister of Denmark

Herbert Hoover, who had run for president on a platform to help farmers with protective tariffs, signed the law in June 1930, ignoring a petition signed by more than 1,000 economists asking him to veto the bill.

The law raised dutiable tariffs — tariffs on goods subject to import duties — by about six percentage points, on average, Mitchener said.

While that may not sound like much, those duties sparked a trade war with major U.S. trading partners, which was perhaps their “most important ramification,” wrote Irwin of Dartmouth College. 

How did Smoot-Hawley provoke a trade war?

Smoot-Hawley raised the average tariff on dutiable imports to 47% from 40%, Irwin said. Depression-era price deflation ultimately helped push that average to almost 60% in 1932, he added.

Nine nations — Argentina, Australia, Canada, Cuba, France, Italy, Mexico, Spain and Switzerland — imposed retaliatory tariffs directed specifically at U.S. products, Mitchener said. 

“Canada, which was heavily dependent on the U.S. market, retaliated almost immediately and imposed tariffs significant enough to put a sizable dent into American exports,” Irwin wrote.

That “tit-for-tat response” with targeted tariffs is the hallmark of a trade war, Mitchener said.

Inventories present a bigger risk than tariffs if consumer spending moderates, says Jefferies' Konik

Tariffs leading up to President Trump

These have not been rationales used for tariffs in the past.

Brett House

professor of professional practice in the economics division at Columbia Business School

Historically, “tariffs have been typically invoked by U.S. administrations when domestic industry has complained about competition from foreign suppliers,” said Brett House, professor of professional practice in the economics division at Columbia Business School.

For instance, during President Barack Obama’s second administration in 2013, the International Trade Commission issued “anti-dumping duties,” or a form of tariff, on washing machines specifically from Mexico and South Korea.

Years later, during his first term, Trump issued a tariff on washing machines as well, but it was global instead of narrowing it to specific countries. At the same time, Trump imposed other tariffs such as costs on steel and aluminum. 

Other presidents, including George W. Bush, Ronald Reagan and Richard Nixon, had also put tariffs on steel, an industry that’s historically received federal protection, Irwin told CNBC. But Trump’s second term is unique in that he’s using tariffs in a “broad brush” manner — applied to all a nation’s goods, for example — something “no president in recent memory” has done, Irwin said.

Additionally, “what is very distinct about Trump’s tariff policy is the supposed justification for it, which is to try to discipline Canada and Mexico for the flow of illegal drugs and undocumented people across their borders,” House said.

“These have not been rationales used for tariffs in the past.” 

Will history repeat?

The Smoot-Hawley-induced spat resembles today’s trade environment in a few key ways — including prominent trade partners calling for retaliation against U.S. policy, economists said. 

For example, before reaching 11th-hour deals to delay 25% tariffs for one month, officials in Canada and Mexico vowed to fight back.

Canadian President Justin Trudeau on Saturday warned that his country would implement a 25% tariff on about $107 billion of U.S. goods. They included duties on meat, dairy, produce and other food products, and beer, wine and spirits.

China said it will impose 15% tariffs on coal and liquefied natural gas imports from the U.S., and 10% on American crude oil, agricultural machinery and certain cars.

“We’re already seeing a trade war unfold,” Irwin told CNBC.

Proposed tariffs on Canada, China and Mexico would shrink U.S. economic output by 0.4 percentage points and increase taxes on Americans by $1.1 trillion between 2025 and 2034, before accounting for any retaliation, according to an estimate by the Tax Foundation.

Of course, “whether it becomes a trade war and history repeats in that [Smoot-Hawley] dimension depends on the response of our trade partners and/or whether Trump is bluffing to get some sort of concession,” Mitchener wrote in an e-mail.

Continue Reading

Personal Finance

$20,000 Caution Bond Requirement for US Visa Applications imposed on 50 Countries

Published

on

The United States Department of State has officially implemented a revised visa policy introducing a mandatory posting requirement for caution payments of up to $20,000 on select foreign travel applications. Under the updated regulatory framework, consular officials are authorized to require temporary nonimmigrant visa applicants from targeted foreign countries to post a refundable financial bond of $20,000 as a condition for visa issuance. The policy mechanism is designed to address diplomatic concerns regarding high overstay rates among temporary visitor, business, and educational visa categories.

The caution bond pilot program applies selectively to foreign nationals from designated countries whose diplomatic entities record historical visa overstay rates exceeding established federal thresholds. Under administrative guidelines published by the State Department, the full financial deposit is posted directly to a dedicated federal escrow account prior to final visa issuance. The entire caution payment is automatically refunded to the applicant upon verified proof of timely departure from the United States in strict compliance with the authorized duration of stay. Conversely, failure to depart within the legal timeframe results in full forfeiture of the posted financial bond to the United States government.

Diplomatic representatives and travel policy experts have expressed varying perspectives regarding the operational implementation of the caution bond system. Administration officials emphasize that the measure serves as an effective, market-based incentive to enforce international travel compliance and preserve domestic immigration security standards. However, international trade organizations and foreign diplomatic missions have raised concerns regarding the financial burden imposed on legitimate business travelers, foreign students, and commercial partners from developing nations.

The United States finalized the rule to make the temporary visa bond program permanent, taking effect on August 3, 2026. The updated permanent regulation replaces the prior 12-month pilot, eliminates the lowest $5,000 tier, and raises the maximum required bond amount to $20,000 for specific B-1/B-2 business and tourist visa applicants.

Here is the list of the 50 countries on the list as o August 3, 2026

African Nations (31 Countries)

  • Algeria
  • Angola
  • Benin
  • Botswana
  • Burundi
  • Cabo Verde (Cape Verde)
  • Central African Republic
  • Côte d’Ivoire (Ivory Coast)
  • Djibouti
  • Ethiopia
  • Gabon
  • The Gambia
  • Ghana
  • Guinea
  • Guinea-Bissau
  • Lesotho
  • Malawi
  • Mauritania
  • Mauritius
  • Mozambique
  • Namibia
  • Nigeria
  • São Tomé and Príncipe
  • Senegal
  • Seychelles
  • Tanzania
  • Togo
  • Tunisia
  • Uganda
  • Zambia
  • Zimbabwe

Asian & Eastern European Nations (11 Countries)

  • Bangladesh
  • Bhutan
  • Cambodia
  • Georgia
  • Kyrgyzstan
  • Mongolia
  • Nepal
  • Papua New Guinea
  • Tajikistan
  • Turkmenistan
  • Uzbekistan

Caribbean & Latin American Nations (5 Countries)

  • Antigua and Barbuda
  • Cuba
  • Dominica
  • Grenada
  • Venezuela

Oceanian Nations (3 Countries)

  • Fiji
  • Tonga
  • Vanuatu

Continue Reading

Personal Finance

Next-Generation Retirement Planning: Managing Longevity Risk and Variable Income Streams

Published

on

Retirement planning strategies are evolving in 2026 to address increased life expectancies, shifting dynamic market conditions, and the transition away from traditional defined-benefit pensions. Individual investors and financial advisors are abandoning rigid retirement models in favor of flexible, multi-asset strategies designed to mitigate longevity risk and preserve purchasing power over multi-decade retirement horizons.

Mitigating Longevity Risk with Dynamic Asset Allocation
As average life expectancies extend past eighty-five years, one of the primary financial risks facing retirees is outliving their accumulated wealth. Traditional fixed income allocations—such as the standard 60/40 equity-to-bond portfolio—are being reevaluated to ensure portfolios generate sufficient capital growth alongside reliable income.

Financial planners recommend maintaining a meaningful equity allocation throughout retirement to offset long-term inflation erosion. High-dividend equity funds, global real estate investment trusts (REITs), and inflation-indexed Treasuries are combined to create diversified portfolios that deliver both growth and income stability.

The Transition to Dynamic Withdrawal Strategies
The classic “4% safe withdrawal rule” is increasingly replaced by dynamic withdrawal strategies that adapt annually based on market performance. Under a dynamic withdrawal framework, retirees adjust their annual distribution rates within pre-set caps and floors:
– Market Upside: During strong market returns, retirees can increase discretionary spending or fund family legacy gifts.
– Market Downturns: During market pullbacks, spending distributions are temporarily reduced to prevent sequence-of-returns risk and preserve core investment principal.

Guaranteed Lifetime Income Options and Deferred Annuities
To establish a guaranteed baseline for essential living expenses, individuals are incorporating modern fixed-indexed and deferred longevity annuities into their broader retirement architectures. Modern annuity structures offer competitive return caps, transparent fee schedules, and inflation-adjustment options.

By funding essential expenses—such as housing, healthcare, and insurance—with guaranteed income streams from Social Security, pensions, and annuities, retirees can manage discretionary investment portfolios with greater flexibility and lower emotional stress during market volatility.

Actionable Steps for Future Retirees
1. Calculate Baseline Retirement Expenses: Determine fixed living costs and map guaranteed income sources to cover essential expenditures.
2. Adopt Flexible Withdrawal Rules: Implement dynamic spending rules to protect investment principal against market downturns.
3. Incorporate Inflation-Protected Assets: Maintain exposure to dividend-growing equities and inflation-indexed bonds to safeguard long-term purchasing power.

Continue Reading

Personal Finance

Building Generational Wealth: Family Governance, Estate Tax Optimization, and Asset Protection

Published

on

As the largest intergenerational transfer of wealth in history accelerates, high-net-worth families, entrepreneurs, and individual investors are placing heightened emphasis on comprehensive estate planning, family governance, and asset protection. Preserving capital across generations requires a balanced approach combining tax-efficient legal structures with open family communication and financial literacy education.

Optimizing Estate Tax Exemptions and Trust Structures
With potential modifications to federal estate tax exemption thresholds on the horizon, proactive estate planning is essential for high-net-worth households. Estate planning attorneys and wealth advisors are establishing multi-generational trust structures to transfer wealth efficiently while minimizing estate and gift tax exposure.

Popular structural strategies include:
– Irrevocable Life Insurance Trusts (ILITs): Utilizing life insurance proceeds to provide liquidity for estate tax obligations without expanding the taxable estate.
– Grantor Retained Annuity Trusts (GRATs): Transferring rapidly appreciating assets to beneficiaries with minimal gift tax consequences.
– Dynasty Trusts: Preserving wealth across multiple generations while providing long-term asset protection from creditor claims and legal liabilities.

Establishing Family Governance and Financial Education
Legal and financial structures alone cannot guarantee long-term wealth preservation without effective family governance. Financial advisors report that a significant percentage of multi-generational wealth dissipation stems from lack of communication and inadequate financial preparation among heir generations.

Families are establishing formal family governance frameworks, including periodic family meetings, written mission statements, and structured philanthropic foundations. Involving younger family members in charitable grant-making and investment discussions fosters financial stewardship and prepares heirs to manage family assets responsibly.

Digital Asset Custody and Legacy Planning
In today’s modern economy, estate planning must extend beyond physical real estate and traditional brokerage accounts to encompass digital assets. Comprehensive estate plans now include detailed inventories and legal access protocols for corporate domain names, intellectual property, digital media rights, and cryptocurrency holdings.

Fiduciaries and estate executors should be provided with secure, encrypted access mechanisms and clear legal authority to manage and transfer digital holdings in accordance with the owner’s estate directions.

Practical Steps for Legacy Planning
1. Review and Update Estate Documents: Ensure wills, revocable trusts, and power-of-attorney designations accurately reflect current family structures.
2. Establish Structured Trusts: Utilize irrevocable trusts to protect assets from creditors and minimize future estate tax liabilities.
3. Create a Digital Estate Inventory: Document access protocols and legal permissions for all online accounts, intellectual property, and digital assets.

Continue Reading

Trending