The Tariffs imposed by Trump in his second term have had a negative effect on our economy so far

notice to all:
I heve posted my R3 below, in reverse order, in posts 27, 26, 25. pls read in that order

Round 3 05/5/2025

X Rebuttal: Pro Claims from R3

X.a Pro’s Resolution and Description, and BoP [burden of proof] are understood, because it is spelled out in both sections; loosely in the Resolution as the economy being negatively affected just by Trump tariffs, and in more detail as negatively affected just by Trump tariffs in the Description. No, I don’t see detail in either, either. What I see is what I’ve already argued in R1 and R2: Pro’s Resolution and Description are short on detail. In fact, Pro’s only detailed offer is [Description]: “Use any economic indicator you want. I won’t provide a metric for “negative economic effect” because I leave that up to the debater.”

X.a.1 Pro will not offer a metric to prove his BoP? That was the claim… No need? Curious perspective. Most who debate intend to have burdens of proof to argue.

X.a.2 I presume “the debater” means me, Con. And I also read that as giving me both BoPs as a burden to argue his negatives and my alleged positives. Thanks. Oh, but that darn Resolution does not imply that I must argue positives. Its implication is only that I defeat the proposal that the economy “tanked,” and only due to Trump tariffs of the second term. I argued by his suggestion, anyway. See below. And as my choice of “metric,” I suggested several in R1 [gold, silver, Apple [NASDAQ], and Amazon [NYSE]]. In R2, I narrowed that to gold [although right now, all are doing very well as my primary argument [thanks]. I realized I needed but one example to defeat the Resolution.[20]

X.b So, gold, per ounce, on close of 4/2 3,120 [rounded - USD]
[day of Trump tariff notice]
4/3 3,118 [loss, $2 per share]
4/4 2,054 [loss, $66; total loss $68]
4/7 2,014 [loss, $50; total loss $118]
4/12 3,204 [gain, $190; all loss recovered]
[day I accepted debate]
4/15 3,219 [ day after Pontiff hospitalized]
4/22 3,433 [day after Pontiff dies, record day]
5/2 3,249 [close of week trading]
[gain total: $129 per share from 4/2]

X.b.1 I chose a metric that defeats Pro’s Resolution. While there was a 5-day loss of $118 [all of 3.8% - a “massive sell off”accordions to Pro], gold regained all loss to $3,204 by the 10th day [4/12], and, as of close of last week, 5/2, a further gain to $3,249, $129 above 4/2. My math may be checked, but I cannot call +$84 after 10 days, or +$129 after

XI Conclusion

XI.a Over a more sensible market view than ten days, we see a mores realistic result, and recall that I suggested another view in my R2, VII,a.2 re: my gold investment: “…it was 1 data field of 50 years of investing in gold; or >18,000 daily data points [1 per day x 50 years]. As I concluded in R1, precious metals are a long haul investment, not a daily. I’ll agree that precious metals’ dailies do go up and down.” However, that longer view of the stock market is also revealing. Over that same 50 years, this insignificant bump of Pro’s “massive sell off” is invisbje. No, Pro did not claim Donald Trump has had effect on the market for 50 years, he did not need to say so in his R3, but, on the other hand, perhaps Pro ought to have at least taken the view. “Massive sell off” would be worded by softer terms.

XI.b Pro’s R3 claim: “You have a BOP to prove that Trump’s tariffs had a positive effect…” is as good a place to conclude as any. Well, on the day I accepted this debate, 4/12… I’ll just refer you to my argument, above, R3, X.b - X.d, the gold price dailies from 4/2 to 5/2. Some days were excluded as not relevant. I promise there are no gains or losses above or below these days represented. And, as Pro has agreed, day-trading is like gambling; and I’ll add that the odds are likely against us. So, why is Pro’s scope of this debate about half of even 30 days, let alone since 1/20/2025; Trump’s 2nd term inauguration?

XI.c Looks like a positive effect to me, but I do not claim that it was Trump effect for any reason, just as my R2, and R3, have noted, and as I quoted, “the Market is fickle.”

XI.d I conclude that I wish the price of gold is as claimed by Pro, having started investing years ago at $400 per ounce! WOW! I’m not just rich; I’m a 1-percenter!!! Nope, no such luck.

I also conclude the Resolution fails, anyway. Thank you to Moozer for the debate, and to readers, especially those who vote.

Sources:

[20] https://www.gold.org/goldhub/data/gold-prices?gad_source=1&gbraid=0AAAAADt5-AJPo0SqgYeTOqR65PK6-9xm9&gclid=Cj0KCQjwoNzABhDbARIsALfY8VMVndA2GNHm5Rg1mT9eIkqhWelU-G7tEQLqes8aoqv9xXRfoSIV62saAt3SEALw_wcB

I have poised my R2 argument, but forgot to advise. The clock is still on me, so, no time lost on your side.

Con Round 2 04/29/2025

VI Rebuttal: Various Pro Claims from R1

VI.a Stock Market: Tracking dailies of NYSE is not productive since its intent is a long-term investment strategy.[12] Pro’s R1 argument, continued in R2, maintains that dailies are still valid to prove the effect of Trump tariffs imposed not just in his 2nd term, but just since April, but offers no back-up support by credible sourcing to prove the BoP. This is only by Pro’s personal opinion. Since the stock market is Pro’s number one factor Resolution’s primary subject, economy, one should presume it have substantiation of just Trump cause by more than opinion, but by a credible evidence, which must be more than a daily media source; ex: NYT, WaPo, CNN, etc.

VI.b Consumer Burden: Perennial year-over-year trade imbalance [more imports to US from trade partners than US exports to trade partners] with most of our top 10 trading partners having the U.S. in a trade deficit. That loss is, itself, a drain on the consumer.
The alleged Trump effect of tariffs from just three weeks ago as an exclusively 2nd-term issue is virtually impossible to separately quantify. See source reference [15] when addressed in section IX]. This was not addressed in Pro’s R2.

VI.c Macroeconomic Consequence: “The balance of trade is one of the key components of a country’s gross domestic product [GDP].”[13] A perennial trade deficit, which has been our US experience since WWII [14], lowers the US real GDP. The issue has existed far longer [since post WWII] than Trump’s 2nd term tariff proposals. Pro cannot quantify separate effect from WWII and a comparatively brief effect of Trump’s tariff activity since 4/2, let alone his brief second term. GDP is not a feature whose data is reactive to just a few days of tracking, as is the necessary model for Pro’s Resolution.

VI.d Retaliation: Pro claimed, “Trump can call his Tariffs "Retaliatory" all he wants, but it's not going to be true,” but did not bother to back-up the claim with credible sourcing. Another unsubstantiated opinion. It is obvious hearsay due to the trade imbalance we have with top-ten trading partners, and not exclusively due [if at all] to second-term Trump-proposed tariffs. [See source citation in R1 rebuttal II.a [6]] This was not rebutted in Pro’s R2 but for the above quoted Pro claim.

VII Rebuttal: Pro R2

VII.a Reaction of the Market: Is it due to Trump tariffs, or by nervous marketeers reacting to other NYSE influences [see R2, VIII.a.3]? Pro continues to insist that the NYSE, et al, reaction by lost points since first week of April is all due to Trump tariffs, but has yet to back up his claim by any credible source. I call that a failed argument.

VII.a.1 Pro’s R2, ¶3 rebuts my personal-experience argument re: precious metal investments and wants evidence Trump is responsible for its effect on the economy. I am not arguing Trump is responsible for my precious metals gains over the last 50 years; his second term began only 100 days ago; or, only four weeks to use Pro’s updated calendar since 4/2. I am claiming only that precious metals are a more stable investment than the NYSE whether Trump has influence, or not. Refer to VI.a.1, above.

VII.a.2 Pro’s R2, ¶4 rebuts my personal experience “of 1 data point.” No, it was 1 data field of 50 years of investing in gold; or >18,000 daily data points [1 per day x 50 years]. As I concluded in R1, metals are a long haul investment, not a daily. I’ll agree that precious metals’ dailies do go up and down, but, again, Pro has not yet provided any credible source that assures Trump is responsible for 50 years of up/down pricing. I argue it is nervous investors selling, that causes market downs for which I have demonstrated credible sourcing [R1, [6]].

VII.a.3 Pro R2, ¶5 claims “…gold prices actually did go down during the tariff announcement on the fourth. They came back, but it still goes to show that the Tariffs had a negative effect.” But Pro claims the neg effect is by unique Trump effect, but offers no credible back-up for the claim. Again, I maintain it is nervous reaction by investors, just as they also did last Monday, 4/21. Was this also due to Trump tariffs? No, it was nervous reaction to the death of Pope Francis. Next week, it may react negatively to black smoke from St. Peter’s Square. The week after that, perhaps to white smoke from St. Peter’s Square, and then the Elon Musk departure from direct management of DOGE… then there’s the Putin-Zelensky dance… and Supreme Court decisions… and then some claim by Occasional Cortex [my moniker for AOC] that barstools qualify for consumer tax rebates. A commentary by one financial advisement group settles the controversy: “Stock markets are fickle.”[15]

VII.a.4 Pro R2, ¶6 claims “…you [meaning me, Con] still haven’t proven that this metric went down due to tariffs and second, even if tariffs did help gold and silver, you’d have to show that gold and silver have a bigger effect on the economy than GDP.” Sorry, it is not my BoP to prove the market declined due to tariffs; that is Pro’s claimed BoP. And, my read of the Resolution and Description, I have no BoP to prove effect of any investment on GDP. Pro apparently wants me to share his head. No thanks; got my own.

VII.a.5 Pro asked what I meant by my very positive results in stock investment, such as Apple. At Apple IPO offering in 1980, I purchased $500 of Apl stock. Since then, it has gained 249,900%[16], and no other investment I own has done nearly as well, but none are affected negatively over time, even in the last 4 weeks. You tell me why, but also tell me if I care that it lost a couple of percentages, but gained them back, plus, since 4/2. That is contrary to the Resolution.

VII.a.6 Pro closed R2 with the last 2 ¶s that appear to mimic my R1, IV.b, but not by quoting, and then turns it on me to prove his BoP. I have no need nor desire to prove Pro’s BoP for him. [More head sharing?] That’s on him.

VIII Argument: “Official” Tax Foundation Report

VIII.a The Tax Foundation website[17] keeps a running “record” [i.e., assumed facts] of the alleged Trump second-term proposed tariffs, but takes the liberty of ignoring that, although delays have been announced, and the periodically updated timeline does acknowledge delays, the report still uses such language in “Key Findings” as “The weighted average applied tariff rate on all imports WILL RISE to 25.8 percent under the tariffs…” Note the absolutism of “will rise” when previously acknowledging delays, which will always alter consequences. That is inaccurate reporting of assumed future conditions, in spite of current facts and thus are not applicable future “facts.” Any statistical model must acknowledge that conditionals affect future probabilities within a confidence level that may not achieve the statistical expectation of 95% minimum.[18] That is inaccurate modeling, and does not conform to appropriate design of experiments. Thus, it is to be avoided.[19]

IX Conclusion

IX.a I conclude that Pro’s two rounds of argument and his 2nd round rebuttals fail to demonstrate Pro’s Resolution of economic negativity exclusively due to the effect of Trump tariffs. My first and second round arguments, and rebuttals demonstrate the Resolution is false due to longer-standing issues than Trump’s 2nd term, and are impossible to segregate and quantify as exclusively due to Trump, as the Resolution claims. Thank you for your continued attention.

Best wishes to Pro for R3.

Sources:
[12] See my R1 rebuttal III.a, b; IV.b
[13] https://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/061515/what-impact-does-balance-trade-have-gdp-calculations.asp
[14] https://www.stlouisfed.org/on-the-economy/2019/may/historical-u-s-trade-deficits
[15] https://www.baileywealthadvisors.com/blog/stock-markets-are-fickle
[16] https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/international/global-trends/apple-ipo-anniversary-apple-stock-price-surge-a-1000-investment-44-years-ago-would-have-made-your-richer-by-249900-by-now/articleshow/116285177.cms?from=mdr
[17] https://taxfoundation.org/research/all/federal/trump-tariffs-trade-war/#timeline
[18] Quality Council of Indiana, “CSSBB [Certified Six Sigma Black Belt] Primer,” IN, 2022
[19] fauxlaw is an ASQ- Certified Six Sigma Black Belt, a recognized expert in statistical modeling and design of experiments.

My total R1 rebuttal/argument is in the previous posts, # 20 and #19

Resolution: The Tariffs imposed by Trump in his second term have had a negative effect on our economy so far

Round 1

Notice: Heretofore recent technical difficulties with DA prohibit Con [fauxlaw] from entering argument rounds within the debate argument fields of DA; whereas, the Forum fields, and the Comments fields within Debate are available for entry by fauxlaw. For this debate, Pro, has agreed [see comments, my post #13; pro’s reply post #14] to allow this condition. I also advise voters and commenters of this condition and request they ignore impulse to consider my forfeit, as this will be the result of my attempted arguments if they, again, fail to post properly in the argument fields. I am debating to the best of my ability considering this site flaw. Please agree that Con’s arguments and source references of each round will be allowed loading in the DA Comments fields. This notice is null and void should Con find that he can enter arguments appropriately in the field rounds as intended. This will only be known upon launch of the debate.

I. Rebuttal: What tarrifs?

I.a On 4/2/2025, President Trump announced intent to issue tariffs, to begin on 4/5/2025, on trading partners with whom the U.S. has trade deficits [higher exports to U.S. from them than U.S. imports to them]. As of now, our top trading partners in export/import [from US perspective] are in trade deficit with the U.S. with the exception of Great Britain on the list.[1]

I.a.1 However, Pro’s R1 claim is with citation of  en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tariffs_in_the_second_Trump_administration. Those plans were actually announced by Trump to be delayed as of 4/4, and, as of today [4/20/2025] the plans remain delayed in favor of Trump conducting one-on-one negotiations to improve the trade imbalance making tariffs unnecessary.[2] Pro’s citation sources make no mention of these delays.

I.a.1.a Aside: Using Wikipedia as a source is curious since Wiki’s own published opinion of its own reliability is questionable because Wiki says “Wikipedia allows anonymous editing…”[3] Where, then, is credible scholarship? It cannot be “anonymous.”

I.a.2 I therefore propose that, rather than Trump being the cause of Pro’s Resolution of “negative effect,” I suggest the negative is due to the short-term U.S. financial market speculation, which has had ongoing issue with Donald Trump for other reasons than trade and alleged economic woes, and going back to the beginning of Trump’s first term, when Washington Post, on 1/20/2017, released a special edition for the inauguration that “…the campaign to impeach President Trump has begun,” and continues into his second term. At the time [first term inauguration], his only apparent “high crime” was walking with his wife in a parade.[4] The media, and many other detractors, have had Trump occupying their heads, rent-free, ever since.

1.a.2.a “Long-threatened tariffs from U.S. President Donald Trump have plunged the country into trade wars abroad — all while on-again, off-again new levies continue to escalate uncertainty.”[5]

I.a.3 I am not implying that there are no tariffs currently applied to trading partners, but Pro’s argument is limited to tariffs Trump has personally imposed, and only “in his second term,” and that it is these tariffs, specifically, and only, which are claimed by Pro to have “a negative effect on our economy, so far.” So, what tariffs, since they have been delayed?

II Rebuttal: “Tariffs don’t bring manufacturing back home…”

II.a Quoted from Pro’s R1, The statement sounds legit; “everyone” says so. Well, StreetInsider disagrees.[6] They point to ten countries and companies committing to invest a collective $3T into American manufacturing as of March 2025. “Everyone” has not been listening.

Sources
[1] https://www.usitc.gov/research_and_analysis/tradeshifts/2021/trade_by_industry_sectors
[2] https://www.reuters.com/world/trump-tariffs-live-markets-selloff-us-reciprocal-tariffs-kick-2025-04-09/
[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reliability_of_Wikipedia
[4] https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2017/01/20/the-campaign-to-impeach-president-trump-has-begun/
[5] https://www.pbs.org/newshour/economy/a-timeline-of-trumps-tariff-actions-so-far
[6] https://www.streetinsider.com/Investing/Investment+commitments+in+U.S.+nears+$3+trillion+since+Trump+took+office/24538801.html

III Argument: Personal Experience

III.a I have been buying gold in 1 oz bar increments for the past 50 years, beginning in the late 70s when gold bars were marketed at $400/oz [rounded]. My latest purchase was 5 years ago, by which time, I was in possession of over 100 lbs, last purchased at $2,800/oz. As of today [04/20] gold spot price is $3,400 [rounded as above].[7] My personal increase from 50 years ago is >700%; not a “negative effect.” I have the same experience with silver 10 oz bars at a lower percentage increase, but still an increase, not a negation, and I do not claim Trump is the only cause of that increase, but is a participant.

III.b Therefore, by personal experience, using the metrics of the gold and silver bar commodities, I refute Pro’s Resolution and call it failed. Same experience with a few selected stocks on the NASDAQ and NYSE exchanges [Apple & Amazon, for example].[8, 9], which I own. Since when is verifiable personal experience not a legitimate debate argument?

IV Argument: “Use any economic indicator you want”[10]

IV.a So, I have, as noted above in Arguments II & III.

IV.b However, then Pro offers this conundrum in the Description: “I won’t provide a metric for ‘negative economic effect’ because I leave that up to the debater. You can choose your own metric, but you will need to defend why it is a better metric than the ones I will use.”[11]. What are we to conclude? Will Pro argue an economic metric, or not? I do not see how the debate is won without it. Nope, Pro offered one metric: tariffs. And all Pro sources are reacting to what was announced from the White House on April 2, 2025, with no reaction cited for reversals made days later. Oh, there was one other metric noted: the NYSE. Well, we can look at the results just since 4/2, all of 19 days’ effect. But, better, look at NYSE as we should, not on recent dailies, as Pro insists, but over the long haul of investing the last 15 years; since 2010. That’s how we should look at stock market commodities, and precious metals, etc. We are not in a ‘negative economic effect,’ period. Over the long haul, even longer than Trump’s first term, let alone the short second, we are doing very well; short-term naysayers notwithstanding. They are myopic, if not altogether blind.

IV.c Pro’s Resolution presents a curious attempted syllogism: the deductive conclusion being, “…[has] a negative effect on our economy so far.” And its alleged supporting premise is singular: “The tariffs imposed by Trump in his second term…” However, just because the syllogistic sense is used does not imply that the conclusion reached is supported by a valid premises. For example:

IV.c.1 [P1] Birds fly. [P2] Camels walk. [C] Therefore, butterflies swim.
This looks and acts like a legitimate syllogism, but is it? No, because the premises given, though true, do not support the conclusion in any way, even though it is true we have a [human] swimming stroke called the “butterfly.” But that is human, not butterfly. The same illogic applies to Pro’s attempted syllogistic Resolution, as demonstrated by the arguments, above.

V Conclusion

V.a I conclude that Pro’s Resolution is false. Thank you for your attention.
To Pro for R2.

Sources:
[7] https://www.jmbullion.com/
[8] https://www.macrotrends.net/stocks/charts/AAPL/apple/stock-price-history#google_vignette
[9] https://www.macrotrends.net/stocks/charts/AMZN/amazon/stock-price-history
[10] Taken from Pro’s debate challenge description
[11] ibid

Used to go backpacking with my brothers every summer in the High Sierras - long time ago. Those days are long behind me. Take your time.

Yup. I was backpacking the last few days so the argument might be a little late. I will definitely have it by the time limit though.

notice to all:
Heretofore recent technical difficulties with DA prohibit Con [fauxlaw] from entering argument rounds within the debate argument fields of DA; whereas, the Forum fields, and the Comments fields within Debate are available for entry by fauxlaw. For this debate, Pro, has agreed [see comments, my post #13; pro’s reply post #14] to allow this condition. I also advise voters and commenters of this condition and request they ignore impulse to consider my forfeit, as this will be the result of my attempted arguments if they, again, fail to post properly in the argument fields. I am debating to the best of my ability considering this site flaw. Please agree that Con’s arguments and source references of each round will be allowed loading in the DA Comments fields. This notice is null and void should Con find that he can enter arguments appropriately in the field rounds as intended. This will only be known upon launch of the debate. This notice will be repeated in my R1 argument should it fail to post in Debate argument field as iy should.

Thanks. No prob with character limit. Shall we proceed?

Sounds okay to me. As long as you stay within the character limit I’m fine with it.

I am accepting this debate on conditional proviso that I will be able to enter arguments in the Argument field of each Con round. A previous debate I enter a couple of months ago failed to allow my posting of arguments in the ARgument field, and my opponent accepted my round posts tyt be in the Comments section. I won't kn ow if I am now able to post in the argument field, or not. Are you willing to allow my round arguments to be posted in Comments if need be? Moderators are, so far, stumped for the reason why I am prohibited from making entry. I just purchased a new iMac, but its os may be beyond the DebateArt site to recognize it, although I am operational here in comments and in Forum, so I don 't think it's an os problem

Good point. Maybe I’ll run this debate again once we’ve seen the long term effects too. That was kinda my original plan, but I got bored so I moved this one up.

It would be a shared burden. But even if you had the burden of proof, proving something 100% is an absurd burden to meet. I would think you would just have to show the impacts are more likely to be harmful on balance than not.

I think con has a case even short term anyway. Just debate what is more fun for you to debate

Well it’s an impossible burden of proof to uphold. I can’t 100% prove that tariffs will be bad long term.

If it's too speculative than how do you plan for the future? Do you just behave in ways that are immediately beneficial ignoring long term consequences?

And I've kinda already done that one a few times.

It's too speculative for me.

Why a few months instead of debating whether the long term effects are good or not?

Fine, I'll do the same debate in few months

People care about the impact it has long term not the effect following 2 weeks after

I dont accept rated debates, but no one really thinks that.

Oh, Good point

I might specify "as of [date]" because otherwise the aggregate effects "so far" will keep changing between rounds.