Instigator / Pro
7
1584
rating
29
debates
70.69%
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.

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.

-->
@Casey_Risk

Seeing as it’s technically Saturday, this is your friendly reminder to vote on this debate. No pressure though.

-->
@Moozer325

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.