Instigator / Pro
Moozer325's avatar
0
Moozer325
1577
rating
20
debates
72.5%
won
Topic
#5753

Trump’s Tariff Policies ended up doing more harm than good for American Citizens

Status
Voting

The participant that receives the most points from the voters is declared a winner.

Voting will end in:

00
DD
:
00
HH
:
00
MM
:
00
SS
Tags
Trump
tariffs
Parameters
Publication date
Last updated date
Type
Rated
Number of rounds
3
Time for argument
One week
Max argument characters
30,000
Voting period
One month
Point system
Multiple criterions
Voting system
Open
Minimal rating
None
Contender / Con
greenplanet's avatar
0
greenplanet
1455
rating
13
debates
34.62%
won
Description

By Trumps Tariffs, I mean any import taxes enacted by Donald Trump when he was president.

You can say they were good or bad by any metric, it just has to make sense.

Round 1
Moozer325's avatar
Moozer325
Pro
#1
Preface

I want to make it clear that this is NOT a debate about whether Tariffs in general are good/bad. I considered making that one, but it would have been very hard for both sides to argue, seeing as almost any economic measure can end in both good and bad outcomes, and the fact that it is notoriously impossible to predict how anything will go in economics. This debate is about looking backwards to see if the Trump era Tariffs actually ended up doing what they were designed to do, not about if Tariffs are the right move going forward. With that, on with the debate. 

What Tariffs did Trump impose?

Seeing as you accepted a debate about Trump's Tariffs, this section might be a bit redundant, but I'm going to put it in anyways just so we can get everything straight. For the sake of succinctness I'm not going to cover every Tariff enacted by Trump in my opening argument. If you want to bring up any, I'm perfectly happy to argue against those, but since I need to get this out on time and I procrastinate a lot, I'll keep most of this focused on the most Famous of the Tariffs the section 301 China import taxes. Again, if you want to take this much more in-depth, I'm perfectly willing to do that, but first I'll gauge your interest by just starting with 301. I'll also point out that many of his Tariffs were similar in writing, and they lead to about the same outcome across the board, so 301 is mostly just looking a test case that represents all the others. To clarify, I am arguing against all of Trump's Tariffs, but I'm using the section 301 ones specifically to illustrate my point about how he used Tariffs, and how they inevitably failed. With that out of the way, what were the 301 Tariffs?

Section 301 Tariffs on China was a set of Import Taxes Imposed by Trump on China (duh) in response to unfair trade practices. They were primarily from 2018-2019 and they came in four distinct waves, totalling 34B, 16B, 200B, and 160B respectively in revenue. Combined, this was all about 362 Billion dollars in revenue from imported goods. The rates ranged from 10-25%. 

Like I said, there are more, but these are the most famous so I'll be using them to illustrate my point for now.

All of the information in this section is from this government site, and you can also find more information there if you're interested for any reason. 

Why were these Tariffs a bad idea?

Now, these Tariffs had good intentions behind them, I don't dispute that. They were in response to China's horrendously unfair trade policies, and many abuses of IP law. They did this by giving American based manufacturers an artificial boost against Chinese competitors. However, the thing about trade wars is that no one wins in the end. They just end up hurting the consumers of both nations involved. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce estimates that the cost of these policies was $1,200 dollars per american household in just 2020. That includes all of the Trump era tariffs by the way, not just section 301. They are noble intentions behind these policies, but the truth is that they just don't accomplish what is promised.

But just how does this happen? The point of Tariffs is to increase the price of foreign made goods, and thus give American manufacturers a boost. However the data shows that they actually fail at achieving this outcome. Imported goods obviously go up in price, but the problem is that so do domestic goods, because they are made with raw materials which increase in price due to blanket Tariffs. The reality of the situation is that we are a global economy, and we can't survive alone. We rely on free trade with other nations to run our own economies, because we can't produce everything ourselves. 

On top of this Americans are hurt even more by retaliatory Tariffs, such as the Agricultural ones imposed by China in response to Trump's policies. The USDA estimates that these retaliatory Tariffs enacted by China cut American agricultural exports by as much as 26 Billion dollars, a 76 percent reduction of our farming exports. Clearly, nobody wins in Trade wars, which is why it's better to avoid them all together. 

The other major goal of these Tariffs was to decrease the national trade deficit. Honestly, there isn't even much debating to do here. The international trade deficit increase by roughly 18% between 2016 and early 2019, which was twice as much as the overall economic growth. Specifically with China, the deficit grew 20.5%. (Source: The Economic Policy Institute)

Finally, you don't have to take my word for it, but many of the most renowned economists of our time have done studies showing how much these policies have hurt our economy. I've had some debates where my opponent discredits my argument because I used sources that were tied to the establishment, so we'll see how this goes. Also, "Sources" is a category, so I guess I'll tack these on at the bottom here:

The first source is from the United States International Trade Bureau, and the second is the National Bureau of Economic Research, and both are very reputable sources.

Conclusion

The data shows that while Tariffs are noble in theory, they don't work in practice. They cost the consumers of all countries thousands in increased prices, and it drags both parties into an unwinnable trade war where everyone loses. Specifically for the Trump era Tariffs, we have benefit of hindsight to look back. Using this we can see that the conventionally accepted theory among economists was proven right, as they increased prices and did next-to-nothing to protect American companies. 

Experts, data, and basic logic all combines can give us the clear picture. Tariffs almost always fail at their one job, and they certainly did when used by Trump during his term.

Thank you for accepting this debate Con, I hope we can continue to have a nice and civil debate. I also apologize if it was a little hard to read all my writing, I'm usually pretty bad at organizing my thoughts for the first round.

greenplanet's avatar
greenplanet
Con
#2
In this debate my stance is that Trump`s tariff policies did not necessarily end up doing more harm than good for American citizens. 
In this round I present my argument. 
 
 Background : Once upon a time the Trump administration enacted higher tariffs ( import taxes) on many imported products mainly from China. 
 They were steel, aluminum, solar panels, semi-conductors and automobiles during the time when he was in the White House. 
 His main purpose was to protect many American industries. 

What is import tariff ?        ``Import taxes are government- imposed charges on goods entering the U.S. to protect domestic industries and raise revenue ``. 1) 
The important thing is that higher  import tariffs = taxes contributes to increasing the revenue of the Federal government and reducing the deficit of the government. 
And ``these taxes come in two main forms: tariffs and customs duties. Tariffs are direct taxes applied to specific products and are often used to protect domestic 
industries from cheaper foreign competition. Duties , on the other hand, are determined based on factors such as the Product`s value, weight, or country of origin.
The U.S. uses both specific duties( a fixed amount per unit, like per ton or kilogram) and ad valorem duties ( a percentage of the product`s value.)    2) 

 When we argue tariff policies which were imposed by Trump, I believe that retaliatory tariff and protective tariff are important. 

Firstly, ``the average U.S. tariff on Chinese goods increased from 3 percent to 21 percent between 2018 and 2020, according to the IMF. 
 Trump`s aggressive policies provoked on trade war, with China and other countries imposing retaliatory tariffs on U.S. goods during those years.``   3) 
 In particular, China imposed on higher, unreasonable and unacceptable import tariffs on agricultural products from the U.S. as retaliatory tariffs. 
Therefore, ``American farmers were hit hardest when China imposed tariffs as high as 25 percent on exported soybeans, cotton and sorghum. 
The Trump administration launched a 23 billion program to bail farmers out with government checks in 2018 and 2019 to offset those losses,  a program  that 
was criticized for being insufficient. Even so, Trump`s policies proved popular. National Bureau of Economic Research paper examined data from the 2020 election and found that voters living in rural areas most impacted by tariffs , mainly the Midwest, Great Lakes region and the South, were more likely to switch party affiliation 
to Republican and vote to re-elect Trump.``  4)  
To tell the truth, government financial aid for agricultural workers were not enough to cover their financial damage.   Coping with this dire situation, Trump expected
on too much political donation from wealthy, Jewish Americans.  This means how they have close and strong relationship with political world of the U.S..    

Secondly, we must keep in mind that Trump introduced Protective Import Tariff which helped keep stable, monopolistic profit among major big companies. 
This policy contributed to eliminating many products of foreign competitive companies which have been seeking for entering the U.S. market.
Survival of many American companies and the opportunity of employment were kept.
As a result, this enabled the government to impose higher corporate tax on many big companies as the financial revenue of the government. 

 From the arguments so far, I believe that Trump`s tariff policy did not brought about severe harmful effect on American citizens.   

         References:   1),2)   https://usacustumsclearance.com.
                                    3),4)  https://www.foxbusiness.com.       
 
     


 




Round 2
Moozer325's avatar
Moozer325
Pro
#3
First of all, thank you for participating in this debate. Lots of people on this site accept debates and then don't participate. 

To get right into it, your first two paragraphs were about clarifying terms, and I think we matched up pretty well on that front, so I'll move on from that. 

You split your argument into two sections, but the in the first one you don't actually provide any reasoning for your side, you just give data that supports my claim.

 Trump`s aggressive policies provoked on trade war, with China and other countries imposing retaliatory tariffs on U.S. goods during those years.``   3) 
 In particular, China imposed on higher, unreasonable and unacceptable import tariffs on agricultural products from the U.S. as retaliatory tariffs. 
Therefore, ``American farmers were hit hardest when China imposed tariffs as high as 25 percent on exported soybeans, cotton and sorghum. The Trump administration launched a 23 billion program to bail farmers out with government checks in 2018 and 2019 to offset those losses,  a program  that 
was criticized for being insufficient.
I addressed this in my opening argument, and you seem to agree with me here. I could be wrong, so correct me if I am, but you clearly are showing how Trump's tariffs ended up provoking retaliatory Tariffs which hurt Americans even more. I said it last round, and I'll say it again, nobody wins in trade wars. Both countries just see an increase in prices. As you said yourself, the government was forced to directly bail out the affected farmers, which ended up failing miserably.

You then go on to say this:
Even so, Trump`s policies proved popular. National Bureau of Economic Research paper examined data from the 2020 election and found that voters living in rural areas most impacted by tariffs , mainly the Midwest, Great Lakes region and the South, were more likely to switch party affiliation to Republican and vote to re-elect Trump.
This is a major logical fallacy. First of all, voters could be motivated by any issues, or non-issues to vote for Trump. It's a false correlation to say that because rural voters like Trump that they must have agreed with his Tariffs policies, and it goes even further to say that because a majority of them voted for him, then they all like how he ended up costing them lots of money with his Tariffs. 

Furthermore, it's a fallacy to deny that these farmers were hit hard, just on the basis of who they voted for. You can't deny the fact that Trump's policies ended up hurting these people a lot, and thus they were a bad idea. 

In your second section, you go on to say this:
Secondly, we must keep in mind that Trump introduced Protective Import Tariff which helped keep stable, monopolistic profit among major big companies. 
This policy contributed to eliminating many products of foreign competitive companies which have been seeking for entering the U.S. market.
Survival of many American companies and the opportunity of employment were kept.
You failed to support this claim with any evidence whatsoever, and I have already refuted it in my round 1 arguments. My sources show how Tariffs actually fail at this main job, because they raise prices across the board. They raise prices on foreign goods, and they raise prices on domestic goods because the raw materials that they are made of are taxed. 

That brings me to your sources.

         References:   1),2)   https://usacustumsclearance.com.
                                    3),4)  https://www.foxbusiness.com.       
I was unable to reach the first one, I think you may have misspelled the URL, and the second only took me to the landing page for FOX business, not a specific article. If you want to fix these next round, you're more than welcome too, but until then, remember that there is a sources section for the judging criteria. 

Thanks for participating in this debate, I hope to continue having a fun and Socratic debate.
greenplanet's avatar
greenplanet
Con
#4
In this round I present rebuttals regarding to the arguments presented in Round 1 and 2 by Pro and my new argument. 
 Rebuttals for Round 1: Pro argues that ``we rely on free trade with other nations to run our own economies, because we can`t produce everything ourselves.``
Maintaining free trade among nations of the world leads to building world peace and prosperity.  However, unfortunately I believe that maintaining it for a long 
time is difficult.  We must pay attention to the existence of Interest Groups. They often demand their request toward the government. 
If possible, they ask for the change of trade policy established by the government.   ``Interest Groups approach all three branches of government at the federal, 
state,and local levels to inform lawmakers and the public about issues and monitor the actions of the government while promoting policies that benefit their 
causes.`` 1)   Here, lobbyists play an important role to make a reasonable and prudent trade policy including tariff policy during the time when government is preparing for establishing trade policy.

 Rebuttals for Round 2:  Pro argued that Trump`s policies ended up hurting farmers a lot.   A retaliatory import tariff policy taken by China damaged  many 
American farmers. But I believe this situation did not last for a long time. The reason is that they wake up to change the situation for the benefit of American farmers. 
Interest group which supports and protects the right and benefit of U.S. farmers can express their request for the U.S. government that China should not impose 
higher import tariff on agricultural products exported from the U.S..    Probably, Trump listened to their voices to get their support. 

Argument: Firstly, Trump`s import tariff triggered the price of goods imported from China into the U.S. market. 
However, many American people can choose their favorable products coming into American market except China. 
For example, they choose goods exported from European countries and the allied countries. 
 
Secondly, With the end of Cold War and the globalization of market,  many U.S. manufacturing companies moved production facilities to China. 
At the same time highly sophisticated technologies used for production among many big industries like semi-conductors and electric cars have been transferred 
to many Chinese companies.  They succeeded in technological take-off to compete effectively in world market. For the U.S. , Chaina has become very aggressive
competitive  country. Moreover, China has become unfriendly country for the U.S. .   
Trump disliked the emergence of the situation, in which the U.S. market might be conquered by many Chinese products. 
Coping with this situation he imposed higher import taxes on many products exported from China. 
 The important thing is that Trump`s policy contributed to de-globalization of American industries. 
Many U.S. companies shifted their production facilities from China into the U.S..   For example, companies which have been producing parts and materials in China 
decided producing them in America.   This contributed to keeping the employment opportunities for American workers and to vitalizing the local economy which 
companies were operating.  We can say that reflecting the confrontation between the U. S. and China ,  the idea of free trade without strict rules and regulations 
between them has died. 

From above arguments so far, viewing from wider perspectives , Trump`s  tariff policies did not bring about harmful effect for American workers and citizens.    


     
 References: 1) `What are interest groups ?  Definition and examples `,  https://www.thoughtco.com.   
  
 You were unable to reach the reference of 1) and 2) in my Round 1.   I would appreciate if you try to  access once again. 
 Now turn to Pro.      
Round 3
Moozer325's avatar
Moozer325
Pro
#5
I don’t really have anything to preface with, so I’m just going to jump into rebuttals.

Maintaining free trade among nations of the world leads to building world peace and prosperity.  However, unfortunately I believe that maintaining it for a long 
time is difficult. 
Well that doesn’t change the fact that it’s a good thing to keep free trade, right? I might be misinterpreting your words, but it feels a little like you just forfeited the resolution. Also, keep in mind that this debate is specifically about Trump's tariffs, not tariffs in general.

They often demand their request toward the government. 
If possible, they ask for the change of trade policy established by the government.  Here, lobbyists play an important role to make a reasonable and prudent trade policy including tariff policy during the time when government is preparing for establishing trade policy.
I’m missing the point of this. You previously stated that maintaining free world trade is a good thing, but here you go on to say that it’s unrealistic due to special interest groups? Again, I could be wrong about what you're trying to say, but it seems like you admit that Tariffs are bad, and then you say we should keep them because they are in the interests of just a few people. If it's truly good to maintain free trade (as you have said) then we should do it even when lobbyists try to keep our politicians from achieving it.

Pro argued that Trump`s policies ended up hurting farmers a lot.   A retaliatory import tariff policy taken by China damaged  many 
American farmers. But I believe this situation did not last for a long time. The reason is that they wake up to change the situation for the benefit of American farmers.  Interest group which supports and protects the right and benefit of U.S. farmers can express their request for the U.S. government that China should not impose  higher import tariff on agricultural products exported from the U.S..    Probably, Trump listened to their voices to get their support. 
Okay, if I'm not mistaken, now the interest groups are against the Tariffs? This debate isn't really about how things get done in Washington, it's about how they should be done, and I'm not really getting the sense that you are arguing for the same topic I am arguing against. Farmers can have their voices heard in government, but it doesn't change the fact that Trump's Tariff package hurt them a lot, and you haven't disputed that point yet, or shown a single instance in which the Tariffs have helped American citizens.

Firstly, Trump`s import tariff triggered the price of goods imported from China into the U.S. market. 
However, many American people can choose their favorable products coming into American market except China. 
For example, they choose goods exported from European countries and the allied countries. 
Well first of all, Trump also imposed major Tariffs on those countries too. Almost 7.5 Billion dollars of imports were taxed coming from the EU, Mexico, Canada, and many others, so your point falls apart there. Second, even if the Tariffs were just in China, that doesn't mean that there wouldn't have been economic consequences.  Like I said before, we are a global economy, and we rely on trade with other nations to sustain ourselves. China is completely dominant in some sectors of the global economy, so blocking their products just increases the price, because there are limited to no other options. 

 You were unable to reach the reference of 1) and 2) in my Round 1.   I would appreciate if you try to  access once again. 
I did that, still didn't help. I don't think it's that important, because your sources were only clarifying common knowledge, and they didn't back up any claims, so I'm fine with not being able to reach them. However, there is still an absence of any sources that don't just clarify definitions and such, so you may want to include those. Also, same thing happened with your source this round, it just took me to the landing page for thought.co, not any specific article.

Conclusion

My opponents rebuttals have been mostly about special interest groups, which (at least from what I can tell) has been mostly unrelated to the topic. They also have not provided sources that support their claim, and their sources for definitions have not been reachable. I have provided multiple economic studies done by people at the top of their field. I also believe I have done well enough with my rebuttals to discount the points of my opponent, and I also believe my opponent has not done well in their rebuttals. 

To my opponent, thank you for taking the time to have this debate with me. 

To anyone reading, thank you for taking the time to vote, and I hope you Vote Pro!
greenplanet's avatar
greenplanet
Con
#6
In Round 3 Pro presented rebuttals for my argument in Round 2.  So I try to present the rebuttals for it. 
Firstly, Pro argued that ``it seems like you admit that Tariffs are bad, and then you say we should keep them because they are in the in the interests of just a few people.``  The political leader like Trump who leads the great Economic Power-House of the world is urgently required to keep the national interest, prestige  and the interest of some of the leading industries. Moreover, tariff policy is very important to get supporters for the election and the incumbent political leader as much as possible. 
Therefore, his higher and unusual tariff policy which imposed on imported goods from China was not necessarily a bad policy. 
 We must say that he assumed a responsibility and leadership as the president of the U.S..    

Secondly,  Pro argued that ``farmers can have their voices heard in government, but it doesn`t change the fact that Trump`s Tariff package hurt them a lot.``
The important problem is that Trump`s tariff package didn`t hurt them a lot but rather a retaliatory higher tariff imposed on many imported agricultural products 
from the U.S. by China hurt them a lot. This threw their life into serious destitute,   Coping with this dire situation, Interest Group which represents many U.S. farmers 
asked the U.S. government for changing the trade policy toward China.   ``Trade associations represent specific industries. For example, the American Farm Bureau
represents the American agriculture industry , from small family farms to large corporate farms.``      1)   

Thirdly, Pro argued that ``China is completely dominant in some sectors of the global economy, so blocking their products just increases the price, because they are 
limited to no other options.``   It seems to me that this argument is wrong.  Blocking Chinese products does not just increase the price.  I believe that we must pay attention to more serious problem which a protective trade policy will cause a serious problem between the U.S. and China from the middle and longer time perspectives.    We must recognize that higher tariff policy imposed on Chinese goods triggered a trade war between the two countries. 
This is an economic war. This situation might develop into a military war in the future.  This is a worst case. Therefore, real war must be evaded. 
So the relationship of hostility and rivalry must be changed to the relationship of friendship  between the U.S. and China.      
Therefore, new way of thinking in trade policy ,including tariff policy is urgently required for the U.S..      
Today, China has a number of highly sophisticated technologies  which can be used for various fields in the U.S. .
Therefore, it is beneficial for many American companies to have cooperative  business relationship with as much Chinese companies as possible. 
In this case, joint venture seems to be a reasonable strategy.  With this strategy, the U.S. could strengthen competitive power in the field of electric car, the alternative energies and semi-conductor in the world market. 
Higher taxes on Chinese products by the U.S. government might continue for the time being. However, taking the future relationship between the U.S. and China 
into consideration, I believe that the alternative policy which I mentioned above must be introduced. 
Bob Davis argues that``the United States makes a mistake when it aims mainly to bar Chinese investment and imports. As the first U.S.- China trade war shows, 
the strategy doesn`t work, except to enrich third countries. And it deprives the United States of Chinese expertise, often developed with a big helping hand from 
U.S. firms, that could now give America`s economy a boost. ``2)     

      It was meaningful for having had a debate concerning a hot and important topic with Pro. 

      Sources: 1) `What are Interest Groups ?   Definitions and Examples `, https://www.thoughtco.com.
                         2) Bob Davis, `Trump lost the trade war to China. The U.S. needs a reset. `,    The New York Times International Edition, October 5-6, 2024