Kerby Anderson
Last week the president launched tariffs and a trade war. Nearly everyone has an opinion about tariffs, but it is worth looking back at an article written in 1985. Why should we consult an essay that is 40 years old? We should pay attention to it because it’s talking about something that happened nearly a century ago.
Ed Yardeni provided a reprint of his article, “The Protectionist Road to Depression.” He believes “the single more catastrophic cause of the Great Depression was the Smoot-Hawley Tariff of June 1930.” Yes, the stock market crash in October 1929 was significant, and so were other economic events at the time. But if you look at his graphs about what happened after passage of the Smoot-Hawley Tariff, you can see his point.
A little history might be in order. Representative Willis Hawley from Oregon introduced a tariff bill in 1929. Senator Reed Smoot of Utah introduced his version of a tariff bill that was finally passed in 1930. A conference bill was later passed. As critics predicted, international trade retaliation came from numerous countries. Soon world trade collapsed as he shows in one of his exhibits.
He wrote his essay because he was seeing protectionist sentiments “spreading at an alarming rate.” One bill (at the time) would impose a 25% tax on all imports from Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, and Brazil. Sound familiar? The countries targeted might have changed, but the percentages proposed are the same.
Will the current tariffs bring jobs back to this country? On my radio program, I read the long list of companies who say they will invest in America. Yes, there is some good news with the tariff announcement, but there is also concern. That’s why learning a bit of economic history might be helpful.

Kerby Anderson
The procedure of de-banking is a problem that needs to be addressed. Unfortunately, the problem is often ignored because leaders of financial institutions maintain they do not deny banking services to individuals because of their political views.
In previous commentaries, I have talked about how Nigel Farage lost access to banking services in the UK, which he believed was due to his previous involvement in Brexit. I’ve quoted Marc Andreesen, who in a Joe Rogan interview said he knew 30 tech company founders who have been de-banked within the past four years.
Fortunately, I have some good news. Lathan Watts (Vice President of Alliance Defending Freedom) was on my radio program to talk about his article that describes how they have “Won a Major Victory Against De-Banking.” After a series of negotiations with attorneys, “JPMorgan Chase agreed to adopt language in its code of conduct that protects against political and religious de-banking.”
In the interview, we talked about some of the action behind the scenes. Two years ago, 19 state attorneys general and 14 state financial officers sent letters calling on Chase to provide transparency on the cancellations.
Also, financial adviser David Bahnsen (who has been on my radio program) filed a shareholder resolution urging Chase to do the same. Even though the CEO of Chase denies they punish accountholders for their political or religious views, he probably wanted to avoid the need to respond to that shareholder resolution.
At the same time, Tennessee lawmakers adopted a first-of-its-kind law prohibiting viewpoint-based de-banking. Other legislatures are considering similar legislation.
If this trend continues, the problem of de-banking may soon be relegated to the past as a relic of financial institutional discrimination.