Don’t Fall into the 3 Tariff Debate Traps
3 Common Logical Inconsistencies in the Tariff Debate
- Goals vs Implementation
- Myopy by Time
- Myopy by Domain
Goals vs Implementation
Argument: “I don’t understand the Trump admin’s thought process. Tariffs are a terrible idea. They keep switching back and forth. The rollout has been horrible.”
Weakness: Confusing the policy goal with the policy implementation.
Argument: “I don’t understand how they can think tariffs are a good idea. They keep flip flopping.”
Weakness: The implementation strategy might be to keep the goal vaguely stated so that if the policies have an unintended consequence, the Administration can say “that’s what we intended all along”.
Myopy by Time
Argument: “Tariffs are going to (and are already) crushing the economy. Terrible idea.”
Weakness: Ignoring that the intent might be on structural (long run) not cyclical (short run); i.e. short term pain for long term gain.
Myopy by Domain
Argument: “This tariff policy is a bad idea. Makes no economic sense.”
Weakness: Perhaps this economic tool is being used to achieve non economic goals. Recall when President Trump said that tariffs were the most beautiful word in the english language. Possibly because his team seems them to have great policy fungibility, influencing the economy, society, international relations, national security, etc…One stone to hit at least one bird.
Poor logic hurts weakens your stance
Using poor logic to rebut the tariffs weakens your position in the debate.
You might be “right”, but will lose because we can’t get past the holes in your logic.
Notice: Nothing I said above suggests I support or oppose the tariffs. Yet, someone a reader of this post who enters with a bias and/or not an analytical mindset will infer my position, which may or may not be true.