Major trade wars since the 19th century
As the world reels from US President Donald Trump's tariffs onslaught, here is a look back at some major trade wars since the 19th century:
- 19th century Opium Wars -
In the mid-19th century, two conflicts over the opium trade, which became known as the Opium Wars, pitted China against the British Empire.
The first began in 1839, when Britain launched a military expedition to force China to open its market to Indian opium sold by British merchants.
Britain won the clash in 1842, with success going beyond opium as China was forced to give up the region of Hong Kong, open five ports to world trade, and limit its customs tariffs to five percent.
In the second Opium War, from 1856-1860, Britain allied with France, and again the imperial power came out on top, forcing China to open up eleven additional ports to foreign trade and maintain diplomatic relations with the West.
- 1890: McKinley offensive -
In 1890, William McKinley -- then a Republican lawmaker, later a US president -- saw through a new law that slapped an average tariff of nearly 50 percent on imports into America.
While the tax hike boosted the development of tinplate production in the US, for example, it also caused prices to soar.
In elections that same year for the US House of Representatives, Republicans suffered big losses, losing their majority to the Democrats. Two years later, the incumbent Republic president was dumped by voters in favour of a Democrat.
McKinley's unpopular law was repealed in 1894.
He nevertheless went on to become US president in 1897. He was assassinated in 1901, months after winning a second term.
Trump often mentions as McKinley as inspiration his protectionist policies.
- 1930: Smoot–Hawley Act -
The Smoot-Hawley Act, named after the two US politicians behind it, imposed tariffs of nearly 60 percent on over 20,000 imported agricultural and industrial products.
Trade partners, led by Canada, retaliated with taxes on US exports, which fell by more than 61 percent between 1929 and 1933.
- 1960s: Chicken war -
In the early 1960s, France and Germany jointly decided to tax the import of US chicken, produced at industrial scale.
The United States retaliated with taxes on a series of products, particularly on certain utility vehicles, which remain taxed to this day.
The so-called Chicken War ran from 1961 to 1964.
- 1985: Pasta war -
This dispute began in 1985 when president Ronald Reagan, in a bid to protect US industry, raised tariffs on pasta imports from Europe .
Europe responded with taxes on US imports of nuts and lemons.
The standoff lasted nine months before the United States and the European Economic Community (EEC) -- as the EU was then known -- reached an agreement.
- 1989-2009: Beef hormone dispute -
In 1989, the EEC banned imports of beef treated with growth hormones.
After challenging the measure at the World Trade Organization (WTO), which ruled in their favour, the United States and Canada, the countries most affected, imposed 100-percent tariffs in 1999 on a range of European goods, from French Roquefort cheese to Italian truffles.
In a compromise deal inked in 2009, these taxes were eventually suspended, and European import quotas for high-quality, hormone-free beef were gradually increased, leading to a final agreement in 2019.
- 1993–2012: Banana war -
In 1993, the EU granted preferential customs regimes to the former European colonies in Africa, the Caribbean and the Pacific, to the detriment of bananas produced by US multinationals in Latin American countries.
These countries filed a complaint with the WTO, which condemned the EU several times, and Latin American countries were authorised to apply retaliatory measures.
An agreement was signed in 2012, allowing for a reduction in import tariffs on bananas from 11 Latin American countries and the end of actions taken by these countries against the EU.
- 2002: Bush vs. EU -
In 2002, US President George W. Bush imposed three-year surcharges of up to 30 percent on 10 categories of products including flat-rolled steel, machine wires and welded tubes.
These measures, intended to boost the US steel industry, affected nearly 29 percent of imports.
The EU filed a complaint with the WTO and published a list of US products it threatened to tax by up to 100 percent.
At the end of 2003, Bush opted to lift the tariffs.
bur-paj-lc-eab/rmb
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
4 minutes ago
- Yahoo
3 Reasons GIS is Risky and 1 Stock to Buy Instead
Over the last six months, General Mills's shares have sunk to $54.81, producing a disappointing 17.1% loss while the S&P 500 was flat. This was partly due to its softer quarterly results and may have investors wondering how to approach the situation. Is now the time to buy General Mills, or should you be careful about including it in your portfolio? Get the full breakdown from our expert analysts, it's free. Even with the cheaper entry price, we're sitting this one out for now. Here are three reasons why there are better opportunities than GIS and a stock we'd rather own. Revenue growth can be broken down into changes in price and volume (the number of units sold). While both are important, volume is the lifeblood of a successful staples business as there's a ceiling to what consumers will pay for everyday goods; they can always trade down to non-branded products if the branded versions are too expensive. General Mills's average quarterly sales volumes have shrunk by 1.6% over the last two years. This decrease isn't ideal because the quantity demanded for consumer staples products is typically stable. When analyzing revenue growth, we care most about organic revenue growth. This metric captures a business's performance excluding one-time events such as mergers, acquisitions, and divestitures as well as foreign currency fluctuations. The demand for General Mills's products has barely risen over the last eight quarters. On average, the company's organic sales have been flat. Forecasted revenues by Wall Street analysts signal a company's potential. Predictions may not always be accurate, but accelerating growth typically boosts valuation multiples and stock prices while slowing growth does the opposite. Over the next 12 months, sell-side analysts expect General Mills's revenue to drop by 4.3%, a decrease from This projection is underwhelming and indicates its products will face some demand challenges. General Mills isn't a terrible business, but it isn't one of our picks. Following the recent decline, the stock trades at 12.9× forward P/E (or $54.81 per share). While this valuation is reasonable, we don't really see a big opportunity at the moment. We're fairly confident there are better stocks to buy right now. We'd suggest looking at one of our top software and edge computing picks. Market indices reached historic highs following Donald Trump's presidential victory in November 2024, but the outlook for 2025 is clouded by new trade policies that could impact business confidence and growth. While this has caused many investors to adopt a "fearful" wait-and-see approach, we're leaning into our best ideas that can grow regardless of the political or macroeconomic climate. Take advantage of Mr. Market by checking out our Top 9 Market-Beating Stocks. This is a curated list of our High Quality stocks that have generated a market-beating return of 183% over the last five years (as of March 31st 2025). Stocks that made our list in 2020 include now familiar names such as Nvidia (+1,545% between March 2020 and March 2025) as well as under-the-radar businesses like the once-micro-cap company Tecnoglass (+1,754% five-year return). Find your next big winner with StockStory today. Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
Yahoo
7 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Where Could Air Canada Stock Be in 5 Years?
Written by Andrew Button at The Motley Fool Canada Air Canada (TSX:AC) stock has been taking a beating in recent years. In 2020, in the early months of the COVID-19 pandemic, the stock fell all the way from $54 to $12, as the travel restrictions in that period caused the company's revenue to decline 80%. The company's stock later rallied when the first COVID vaccine was announced, but subsequently gave up the gains for reasons that are less clear. Today, Air Canada is in a much better place than it was in 2020. It's profitable. It has repaid much of its debt. Its revenue has recovered to its pre-COVID level and then some. Nevertheless, at around $19, AC stock is still nowhere near its pre-COVID stock price. What's going on here? There are a few lingering issues for Air Canada that have investors worrying about the stock, even though the underlying company is in a much better place than it was before the crash. The question is, why the apparent discrepancy? In this article, I will explore the reasons why Air Canada stock is still at a relatively low level and why I think it will be at a higher one in five years' time. One reason why some investors are concerned about Air Canada is because of the large amounts of capital expenditures (CAPEX) the company is undertaking in the next three years. CAPEX refers to spending on fixed assets like property, plant and equipment. In the case of an airline, it mainly refers to spending on new aircraft. Air Canada expects $3.4 billion in CAPEX in 2025, $4.3 billion in 2026, and $4.9 billion in 2027. After 2027, the CAPEX spend is expected to decline. The amounts of CAPEX above are fairly large. Notably, they exceed the company's past amounts of free cash flow, seeming to imply that Air Canada will be cash flow negative in the years ahead. Is this CAPEX such a big risk for Air Canada? In my opinion, no. Airplanes tend to be in service for decades, meaning that a lot of CAPEX now does not mean a lot of CAPEX in the future. Also, Air Canada's revenue has far surpassed levels seen in past years, so unprecedented CAPEX does not necessarily mean chronic cash burn. Overall, I don't think Air Canada's CAPEX is going to ruin the company. Another reason why people are concerned about Air Canada is because of Donald Trump's trade wars. Earlier this year, Trump slapped a 25% tariff on Canada, ostensibly to counter the flow of fentanyl into the United States. In response, many Canadians pledged to cancel vacations to the United States. Later, data collection firms reported that Canada-U.S. air travel did decline — one story claimed by as much as 70%. Air Canada said that it saw an impact but denied that its U.S. travel hours went down by 70%. Again, this strikes me as not that big of a risk. Canadians are most likely replacing U.S. travel with inter-provincial travel and overseas travel. Air Canada's most recent earnings release confirms this: revenue was stable year-over-year, and free cash flow was positive. On the whole, Air Canada looks like a bargain at 8.8 times earnings and 1.6 times operating cash flow. I think it will be worth more in five years' time than it is today. The post Where Could Air Canada Stock Be in 5 Years? appeared first on The Motley Fool Canada. More reading Made in Canada: 5 Homegrown Stocks Ready for the 'Buy Local' Revolution [PREMIUM PICKS] Market Volatility Toolkit Best Canadian Stocks to Buy in 2025 Beginner Investors: 4 Top Canadian Stocks to Buy for 2025 5 Years From Now, You'll Probably Wish You Grabbed These Stocks Subscribe to Motley Fool Canada on YouTube Fool contributor Andrew Button has positions in Air Canada. The Motley Fool recommends Air Canada. The Motley Fool has a disclosure policy. 2025


Hamilton Spectator
9 minutes ago
- Hamilton Spectator
Marines temporarily detain man while guarding LA federal building
LOS ANGELES (AP) — Shortly after they began guarding a Los Angeles federal building Friday, U.S. Marines detained a man who had walked onto the property and did not immediately hear their commands to stop. The brief detention marked the first time federal troops have detained a civilian since they were deployed to the nation's second-largest city by President Donald Trump in response to protests over the administration's immigration arrests. The Marines were activated earlier this week but began their duties Friday. The man, Marcos Leao, was later released without charges and said the Marines were just doing their jobs. A U.S. Army North spokesperson said the troops have the authority to temporarily detain people under specific circumstances. He said those detentions end when the person can be transferred to 'appropriate civilian law enforcement personnel.' Leao's detention shows how the troops' deployment is putting them closer to carrying out law enforcement actions. Already, National Guard soldiers have been providing security on raids as Trump has promised as part of his immigration crackdown . Leao, a former Army combat engineer, said he was rushing to get to a Veterans Affairs appointment when he stepped past a piece of caution tape outside the federal building. He looked up to find a Marine sprinting toward him. 'I had my headphones in, so I didn't hear them,' Leao said. 'They told me to get down on the ground. I basically complied with everything they were saying.' Leao was placed in zip ties and held for more than two hours by the Marines and members of the National Guard, he said. After Los Angeles police arrived, he was released without charges, he said. The Los Angeles Police Department did not immediately respond to a request for comment. 'I didn't know it was going to be this intense here,' he said later. A U.S. official told the AP that a civilian had stepped over the line. He was warned they would take him down and they did, according to the official, who requested anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss the matter. About 200 Marines out of the 700 deployed arrived in the city Friday, joining 2,000 members of the National Guard that have been stationed outside federal buildings this week in Los Angeles. Another 2,000 Guard members were notified of deployment earlier this week. Before the unusual deployment, the Pentagon scrambled to establish rules to guide U.S. Marines who could be faced with the rare and difficult prospect of using force against citizens on American soil. The forces have been trained in de-escalation, crowd control and standing rules for the use of force, the military has said. But the use of the active-duty forces still raises difficult questions. 'I believe that this is an inevitable precursor of things yet to come when you put troops with guns right next to civilians who are doing whatever they do,' said Gary Solis, a former Marine Corps. prosecutor and military judge. He said it's an example of Trump's attempt to unravel the Posse Comitatus Act, which bars active-duty forces from conducting law enforcement. ___ Watson reported from San Diego and Baldor from Washington. Error! Sorry, there was an error processing your request. There was a problem with the recaptcha. Please try again. You may unsubscribe at any time. By signing up, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy . This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google privacy policy and terms of service apply. Want more of the latest from us? Sign up for more at our newsletter page .