Reply #126: I have not contended that the increased significance of trade caused an improved economy.

[pampango]

It could be that an improving economy caused a greater significance of trade. All you can tell from the chart is that the level (percent of GDP) of trade in a given year was directly correlated to the health of the economy. There were no years during the period covered by the chart in which the role of trade decreased and the economy improved or that trade increased and the economy worsened.

You may prefer to believe that what appears to be a direct statistical correlation between the amount of trade and the health of the economy is just a series of lucky coincidences and that the two have nothing to do with each other. By all means believe whatever you wish, but neither does anything in that chart prove that Smoot-Hawley, or anything else that hurt trade, ever did anything positive for the economy.

I agree with you that FDR's programs had much to do with the improving economy. Since his programs kicked in at about the same time that Smoot-Hawley was effectively repealed, it is a more muddled picture as to which helped the economy more. Still throughout that period there was a direct correlation between the significance of trade and the health of the economy.

It's been nice talking with you, but I have to get up early. Have a good evening. :)