africa.chinadaily.com.cn
Economists Condemn Trump's Tariffs as Unconstitutional and Economically Harmful
More than 1,300 economists, including two Nobel laureates, signed a declaration warning that President Trump's tariffs risk a self-inflicted recession and violate the US Constitution; the declaration argues that the tariffs are based on an erroneous formula, imposed without Congressional consent, and that trade deficits reflect investor confidence in the US economy, not economic decline.
- How do the economists' arguments challenge the administration's justification for tariffs, and what are the implications of this disagreement?
- The economists argue that the tariffs, imposed without Congressional consent, violate the Constitution by usurping the power to levy taxes. They further contend that trade deficits, used to justify the tariffs, actually reflect investor confidence in the US economy and benefit the country, contradicting the administration's claims.
- What are the potential long-term implications of this conflict for US trade policy, the balance of power within the US government, and the global economic order?
- The declaration's impact extends beyond economic analysis; it highlights a broader constitutional crisis. The economists' forceful condemnation, coupled with bipartisan legislative pushback and widespread public protests, could significantly influence future trade policy and the balance of power between the executive and legislative branches.
- What are the immediate economic and constitutional consequences of President Trump's escalating tariffs, according to the declaration signed by over 1,300 economists?
- Over 1,300 economists, including two Nobel laureates, publicly condemned President Trump's tariffs, warning of a potential recession and unconstitutional overreach. They cite an "erroneous and improvised formula" for the tariffs, impacting goods from over 180 countries and regions, and predict increased prices and economic contraction for American workers.
Cognitive Concepts
Framing Bias
The headline and introduction immediately frame the tariffs negatively, emphasizing the warnings from leading economists and the potential for recession. The article prioritizes the negative consequences and criticisms, shaping the reader's understanding towards a strongly critical perspective. The inclusion of protests and market reactions further reinforces this negative framing.
Language Bias
The article uses loaded language such as "self-inflicted recession," "erroneous and improvised formula," "misguided policies," and "seizure of power." These terms carry strong negative connotations and contribute to a critical tone. More neutral alternatives could include phrases like "potential economic downturn," "unconventional formula," "policies with unintended consequences," and "assertion of executive authority.
Bias by Omission
The article focuses heavily on the economists' criticism of the tariffs and the negative market reactions, but gives less attention to potential arguments in favor of the tariffs or the administration's perspective. While it mentions the administration's justification, it doesn't delve into the details or offer counterpoints from supporters of the tariffs. This omission could leave readers with a one-sided view of the issue.
False Dichotomy
The article presents a somewhat simplistic eitheor framing: either the tariffs are economically disastrous and unconstitutional, or the administration's justifications are completely unfounded. It doesn't fully explore the potential for nuanced outcomes or the possibility of compromise.
Sustainable Development Goals
The economists warn that Trump's tariffs risk triggering a "self-inflicted recession", leading to increased prices and potential economic contraction, negatively impacting jobs and economic growth. The article highlights concerns about job losses for American workers due to misguided policies. The imposition of tariffs without Congressional consent also undermines economic stability and predictability.