No worries at all! This section of Moodle is for curiosity, so let's water it!
their main argument (which seems to be most conservatives' view on tariffs) was that the tariffs were an attempt to retaliate against other countries' high tariffs on American goods. In response to that initial statement, I mentioned that tariffs truly only inhibit Americans from purchasing goods at the most economically efficient price.
their main argument (which seems to be most conservatives' view on tariffs) was that the tariffs were an attempt to retaliate against other countries' high tariffs on American goods. In response to that initial statement, I mentioned that tariffs truly only inhibit Americans from purchasing goods at the most economically efficient price.
This was a good response, and that does seem to be the primary conservative talking point. However, I would answer the following. Tariffs are bad because they prevent us from having someone else produce the goods we are too busy to produce ourselves. For example, a lawyer that does all of the paperwork and research themselves is a less efficient lawyer than one who hires a paralegal so that they can focus on the more productive aspects of being a lawyer. Similarly, a doctor that takes vitals and performs intake is a less efficient doctor than one who hires nurses to perform these tasks. In both cases, the doctor and the lawyer could most likely perform the tasks of the people they are hiring (and to a higher quality even), but performing those tasks (including at that higher quality) costs them time that they could be doing something else that their customers value (as demonstrated; if the customers valued quality more, then the lawyer/doctor would be doing those tasks themselves). In reality, what tariffs end up being is a tax that make Americans poorer. Just because other countries are doing something to make their citizens poorer (yes, Chinese tariffs make not just the American exporter poorer, but the Chinese citizen too), does not mean we should use the same policy to make our citizens poorer. Put simply, if not trading with other countries makes us wealthier, why does the United States Navy put a blockade around the ports of countries that we are trying to defeat? Is the Navy stupid? Don't they know they will be helping the domestic production of the country they are blockading (sarcasm)!?
To this, they said that buying more American made goods is better for our economy than buying from other countries. In the example of China, my parents added that they have multiple tariffs on American goods in place in their country. Additionally, they added that there are sweatshops and work camps (essentially concentration camps) that force their laborers to work for little to no pay in China. How do ethics play into the conversation of economics and government action?
As a response to the first sentence, they aren't quite correct. Buying American steel is better for the American steel companies, like SDI, but having to do so makes any manufacturer that uses steel worse off. When Trump had his first tariffs placed on steel during his first presidency, we actually saw a few auto manufacturing plants close down. Farmers were also hurting since less foreigners were buying American agricultural produce because either a) retaliatory tariffs, or the bigger one b) foreigners had less dollars to buy American exports since American were buying less products from them. In truth, tariffs actually reduce the employment available in the economy overall once you consider the second and third order affects of tariffs. Yes, we had more steel jobs, but there way more jobs killed in other industries.
As for the sweatshop claim, I would urge them to consider that the Chinese worker prefers their lesser conditions. If the employer in China had to raise working conditions, this would cut into the wages that the laborer could earn. If the employer tried to pass the cost of the better conditions onto the buyer of the product instead, then the buyer would simply move on to the more skilled Western labor. This argument is a popular one, but it fails to consider what jobs the laborers with poor working conditions would be doing without that job - most likely performing back breaking work in field trying to grow enough food to live while earning much less money. As for the work camps, I am curious what the source is for this. Let's assume that slave labor is being used (at the very least I have heard of slave labor being used to mine minerals for phone batteries in the Congo), I am not sure tariffs are the best approach to solve this issue. Perhaps a ban on that particular item until slavery is no longer used would be much more appropriate.
To this, they said that buying more American made goods is better for our economy than buying from other countries. In the example of China, my parents added that they have multiple tariffs on American goods in place in their country. Additionally, they added that there are sweatshops and work camps (essentially concentration camps) that force their laborers to work for little to no pay in China. How do ethics play into the conversation of economics and government action?
As a response to the first sentence, they aren't quite correct. Buying American steel is better for the American steel companies, like SDI, but having to do so makes any manufacturer that uses steel worse off. When Trump had his first tariffs placed on steel during his first presidency, we actually saw a few auto manufacturing plants close down. Farmers were also hurting since less foreigners were buying American agricultural produce because either a) retaliatory tariffs, or the bigger one b) foreigners had less dollars to buy American exports since American were buying less products from them. In truth, tariffs actually reduce the employment available in the economy overall once you consider the second and third order affects of tariffs. Yes, we had more steel jobs, but there way more jobs killed in other industries.
As for the sweatshop claim, I would urge them to consider that the Chinese worker prefers their lesser conditions. If the employer in China had to raise working conditions, this would cut into the wages that the laborer could earn. If the employer tried to pass the cost of the better conditions onto the buyer of the product instead, then the buyer would simply move on to the more skilled Western labor. This argument is a popular one, but it fails to consider what jobs the laborers with poor working conditions would be doing without that job - most likely performing back breaking work in field trying to grow enough food to live while earning much less money. As for the work camps, I am curious what the source is for this. Let's assume that slave labor is being used (at the very least I have heard of slave labor being used to mine minerals for phone batteries in the Congo), I am not sure tariffs are the best approach to solve this issue. Perhaps a ban on that particular item until slavery is no longer used would be much more appropriate.