Warning

Info

Warning

Info

Warning

Info

LSDefine

Simple English definitions for legal terms

Tariff Act of 1930

Read a random definition: Geneva Conventions of 1949

A quick definition of Tariff Act of 1930:

The Tariff Act of 1930, also known as the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act, was a law that increased taxes on goods imported into the United States. This made it more expensive for other countries to sell their products in the US, and caused those countries to raise their own taxes on American goods. This led to a decrease in international trade and is believed to have contributed to the Great Depression, a time of economic hardship in the US and around the world.

A more thorough explanation:

The Tariff Act of 1930, also known as the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act, was a law passed in 1930 that increased the rates of tariffs on imported goods in the United States. This law was created to protect American businesses and farmers from foreign competition. However, it had unintended consequences that worsened the Great Depression.

The Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act raised tariffs on most imported goods, making them more expensive for American consumers. This led to retaliatory tariffs from other countries, which hurt American exports and made the economic situation worse.

For example, if a foreign company wanted to sell a product in the United States, they would have to pay a higher tariff than before. This made their product more expensive for American consumers, who might choose to buy a cheaper American-made product instead. However, other countries responded by raising their own tariffs on American goods, making it harder for American businesses to sell their products overseas.

Overall, the Tariff Act of 1930 had negative effects on the American economy and worsened the Great Depression.

tare | tarnishment

Warning

Info

General

General chat about the legal profession.
main_chatroom
👍 Chat vibe: 0 👎
Help us make LSD better!
Tell us what's important to you
yeah there are so many good cuisines in ithaca
renard99
22:31
@lilypadfrog: that’s a pity I’da be liking them all
texaslawhopefully
22:31
Only food I’m going to miss for sure if I leave Texas is texmex
22:31
waspy hasnt had thai food in ithaca yet. ithaca thai is so good
^^^^ truuuuuu
22:32
there are two major thai places and they have very similar names bc a divorced husband and wife own them lol
22:32
personally i think taste of thai is better than taste of thai express but thats just me
i had pho tho and it was really good and huge portions
texaslawhopefully
22:32
Glad they have good Thai food, I love Thai food! Can’t wait to visit :)
22:33
when tex goes to ithaca i want to come
Dkk
22:34
Crying Tiger, best Thai dish.
damn im so hungry all i had today was a curry tonkatsu and buldak
and it was a lil baby noodle cup
vvv hungry
22:36
curry tonkatsu so yummeh
22:36
whats even open rn? pizza?
CTB is it i think
22:37
is collegetown pizza not open
22:37
i used to get a slice from there or wings over at like 1am after my shift at the restaurant
Dkk
22:48
Ross Ulbricht free. God Bless Trump. Huge win.
JeremyFragrance
22:54
agreed
texaslawhopefully
22:55
This is an interesting read: https://thedispatch.com/article/birthright-citizenship-trump-implications/
Dkk
23:01
I mean, idk how it's possible to end birth right citizenship without amending the constitution because to me the 14th amendment is pretty clear about it.
ross ulbricht tried to hire a hitman to kill 5 people
i am not that sympathetic to him
Dkk
23:04
@KnowledgeableRitzyWasp: That might have been an FBI agent. It was most likely him and he was most likely doing it to retrieve stolen funds that corrupt FBI agents stole, but yeah moral gray area but me personally, cool with hitmen. It's not like it is uncommon to hire hitmen. I don't think the action itself is necessarily wrong but the intent behind it can be.
Dkk
23:05
Like, Boeing whistblowers being killed by hitmen = wrong but a guy hiring hitmen to retrieve stolen funds = good to me.
texaslawhopefully
23:05
@Dkk: Yeah, for sure. My guess is it'll go to SCOTUS and it'll be 8-1 or 7-2, saying that EO was unconstitutional.
Dkk
23:06
Indeed. I need a count for how many exectuive orders he has signed and how many already have pending lawsuits.
i've been away for a while what were the most recent waves? any this week?
LSD+ is ad-free, with DMs, discounts, case briefs & more.