Instigator / Pro
7
1584
rating
30
debates
71.67%
won
Topic
#5753
Trump’s Tariff Policies ended up doing more harm than good for American Citizens
Status
Finished
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
Winner & statistics
Better arguments
3
3
Better sources
2
0
Better legibility
1
1
Better conduct
1
1
After 1 vote and with 2 points ahead, the winner is...
Moozer325
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
5
1444
rating
16
debates
34.38%
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
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.
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
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 thatwas 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.
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
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 longtime 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 manyAmerican 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!
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
RFV Part 1
Moozer325 R1
(Reading)
Section 301 Tariffs on China,
In response to unfair trade,
362 Billion dollars,
$1,200 dollars per American household in just 2020,
Argues raw goods we use for our manufacturing went up in price,
Argues China responded with own tariffs,
Claims no one wins in trade wars.
(Thoughts)
Does this mean one has no choice for good outcome but to let other country be unfair?
Sure you and bully both get bloody noses if you fight them,
But maybe you keep your lunch money,
Wouldn't China be winning if it is allowed to be unfair in trade?
(Reading)
Has lot of sources.
"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, totaling 34B, 16B, 200B, and 160B respectively in revenue. Combined, this was all about 362 Billion dollars"
"Tariffs enacted by China cut American agricultural exports by as much as 26 Billion dollars, a 76 percent reduction of our farming exports"
262 Billion we gained sounds better than 26 billion lost. . . But then "76 percent reduction of our farming exports" also sounds big loss.
greenplanet R 1
(Reading)
Reduced government deficit.
(Thoughts)
Hm, 'maybe good, but if it comes at a high cost to the people, was it 'really good? Can't government find other methods?
Also problem of China Tariffs.
(Reading)
greenplanet argues people hit hard by trade war, still saw it as good action.
eliminating many products of foreign competitive companies which have been seeking for entering the U.S. market.
eliminating many products of foreign competitive companies which have been seeking for entering the U.S. market.
America still able to make use of and tax American business.
( R1 Both Thoughts)
Hm, I'm undecided, economics confuses me.
I can't seem to access the sources that greenplanet is using here. . . Hm, do references 'have to be accessible? If I access a book that isn't free online, does that mean it cannot be sourced?
I suppose if one is 'explicit in posting quotes from source it 'might be acceptable. Hm, I 'see quote makes in greenplanet round 1, but it's not 'completely clear to me.
Moozer325 R 2
(Reading)
Notes famers injured by tariffs in greenplanet R 1
(Thoughts)
Do you think no one wins in 'any war, or just trade wars?
Surely people win in some trade wars, and obviously regular wars have winners (Of sorts)
But debate 'is whether Trump Tariffs did more harm than good, not whether Trade war is possible.
(Reading)
Argues Farmers may not have supported tariffs even if they supported Trump,
Argues farmers still hurt by tariffs, whether they 'thought it was good plan not matter.
Points out greenplanet sources not working.
(Thoughts)
Hm, sources, if I read a debate 10 years or even a year later, sources often disappear or are changed.
Wikipedia for example, it's pages change over time.
RFV Part 2
greenplanet R 2
(Reading)
lobbyists
(Thoughts)
Lobbyists often hated, I 'suppose one can argue they serve a purpose. But I don't 'like doing so. Argument I don't see is how Lobbyists can be a problem, Lobbyists would be responsible for unfair trade situations I'd think. And thus would require correction via trade war?
(Reading)
Argues Farmer damage temporary.
(Thoughts)
That 'might be, but evidence to support the theory would help your argument a 'lot.
Whether examples in other historical trade wars and some damages being temporary, or policies Trump took to help farmers. I recall talk earlier that criticized Trump for not doing 'enough.
But what 'would enough have been, even if it was not enough, was it a decent trade off, Sometimes one accepts damage to get to a better position in a fight, or to make enemy submit.
greenplanet 'does make argument that Trump tariffs might work out fine, because it would be logical for a politician to support their supporters. Opens possibility of future Trump actions to solve harm problems in trade war.
Flaw in this is it hasn't happened yet.
Flaw in the flaw, is one might say a surgical cut has done more harm than good until it has healed. But 'obviously people expect surgical cut to heal. The future is 'assumed in the harm/good.
(Reading)
We have other markets than China.
China is becoming aggressive.
Again I cannot read source.
(Thoughts)
I lean 'slightly towards Mooze in arguments, but may end up tying, as I think greenplanet has decent points. In an either or winner selection probably choose Mooze, but will probably tie and give Mooze sources.
Moozer325 R 3
(Reading)
Argues Free Trade is good
(Thoughts)
'Maybe, but point of other side argues that times come when war, trade war is necessary.
(Reading)
lobbyists
(Thoughts)
I don't like lobbyists, and like argument of keeping them out of politics, on other hand business, rich people, corporations. 'Create power in a way. Being aware of them growing and pruning them, being aware of their needs, health, allows a country power.
(Reading)
interest groups are against the Tariffs
(Thoughts)
They might not be against 'Trumps actions, rather they are against Chinas Tariff actions.
(Reading)
major Tariffs on those countries too.
(Thoughts)
Hm, fair point, why did Trump do those Tariffs, did countries other than China retaliate?
(Reading)
Sources.
greenplanet R 3
(Reading)
Argues economic action necessary to maintain prestige, and to get Trump re-elected.
(Thoughts)
While economic actions and tariffs sometimes necessary, doesn't mean 'these specific Tariffs were necessary.
But I 'do find arguments about needing to address China actions convincing. But need different than result.
Hm, still not certain about result, in either or, I still go Mooze, but if tie option, tie.
Ehh, I 'suppose one can argue that Trump being elected is better for the American people, thus Tariffs were necessary, bit late and controversial argument though.
(Reading)
Trumps Tariffs didn't hurt farmers, China Tariffs did.
(Thoughts)
Hm,, Interesting thought, but one still sees cause and effect. If I punch bully, my action did not give me a bloody nose, the bully's action did.
But I think my punch probably is part of cause of bully's action.
I don't mean to call China a bully, I'm just trying to simplify my thinking.
(Reading)
Tariffs better than complete embargo, and we need to make sure we have equal trade with China in future. Trump Tariffs part of future plan, thus are good.
(Thoughts)
I suppose.
Final Thoughts
I'm still uncertain whether Trumps Tariffs did more harm or good.
Both sides make points,
Pro, of immediate and easily quantified examples.
Con, in farther reaching and less obvious examples.
If I get into a fight with a bully, I can see we both have bloody noses, I 'can't so easily see if he will back off in the future, until the future has come.
Though Pro 'does make arguments about long term trade,
So does Con.
Debate about 'Trumps Tariffs, not economic policy as general idea.
. . . I'm going with tie,
Though it 'does sound American finances were hurt,
Americans 'also helped by attempts at equal trade positions.
I don't really understand economics. I think this debate could swing either way if others voted.
But both were legible, both good conduct.
Sources Pro, Con sources just had trouble.
Seeing as it’s technically Saturday, this is your friendly reminder to vote on this debate. No pressure though.
Remind me to vote on this debate this weekend.
It is so stupid to use tarriffs on countries tha5 use slave labor. So what if people are forced to work in the service industry instead of getting decent wages at factories. It still harms consumers because they have to pay a fair price for products, instead of being able to benefit off of slave labor.
I mean, its a truism that tarrifs reduce competition, which increases prices or reduces supply of goods.
1. Cheap imports = local buisnesses cannot achieve same prices as cheap imports
2. No cheap imports = local buisnesses still cannot achieve same prices as cheap imports would
Basically, both of these are true, since if you agree with 1, you must logically agree with 2, because removing cheap imports in no way allows local buisnesses to copy their prices. If local buisnesses could produce same prices as cheap imports, you wouldnt need to say 1 in the first place.