Albert J. Beveridge Quotes

A trade war is a conflict in which each side uses most of its ammunition to shoot itself in the foot.

Economic aggression can have no other offspring than war. It is dangerous as it is futile.

The philosophy of protectionism is a philosophy of war.

Trade wars aren't started by countries appealing to respected, independent trade authorities. Rather, trade wars begin when one country decides to violate international trade rules to undercut another country's industries.

I ask the Congress not to take any action which would in any way hamper or delay the delivery of American-made planes to foreign nations which have ordered them or seek to purchase more planes. That, from the point of view of our own national defense, would be extremely short-sighted. Our immediate problem is to superimpose on this productive capacity a greatly increased additional productive capacity.

… great contest for commercial supremacy.

Mercantile jealousy is excited, and both inflames, and is itself inflamed, by the violence of national animosity:..

It is because the administration is hostile to silver; and thus it is surrendering this country to the Shylocks of the Old World who have made war upon it.

Then the war became a real problem and along with other shortages, they started to have paper problems.

Our nation has moved from the cold war to the trade war.

Sea power could starve whole empires for food, and all their industries for raw material.

The spirit of commerce has a tendency to soften the manners of men and to extinguish those inflammable humors which have so often kindled into wars.

There is no such thing as a blockade without you are in war.

Many of the wars this century were about oil, but those of the next century will be over water

Whenever Canada moves to protect its own industries and people, it is subjected to violent attacks in the U.S. Congress and to threats of economic retaliation.

A trade war between the U.S. and China would hurt both countries, but there is reason to believe that the U.S. has more to lose. Today, 80% of global trade comprises international supply chains,” she writes. “Declining trade costs have allowed firms to splinter their production lines geographically, with goods processed and value added in multiple countries along the chain. If China threw a handful of sand in the gears of these chains, it could disrupt entire production networks, doing serious damage to the U.S….

Is there any man here or any woman, let me say is there any child here, who does not know that the seed of war in the modern world is industrial and commercial rivalry?

Britain and America won the last world war. We will win the next world war.

Has France absolutely decided to refuse us all succor, and thus become the victim of England and the laughingstock of Europe? ... We offer France in return for secret assistance a treaty of commerce which will secure to her for a certain number of years after the peace all the benefits with which for a century we have enriched England

In order to function, the United States needs an enemy.

When commerce with Moslems flourished, zeal for their massacre declined [Among Christians].

If there is war with any Barbary State, you will then distribute your force in such a manner, as your judgment shall direct, as to best to protect our commerce and chastise their insolence—by sinking, burning or destroying their ships and vessels wherever you shall find them.

Indeed, it is unnecessary to do more than point out that the worst danger of cataclysm in a capitalist society is the danger of war arising out of imperialism born of the union of capitalism and nationalism.

War is capitalism with the gloves off …

… a war of the world