kathimerini.gr
Greek Economists: Trump's Tariffs to Harm US Economy
The Greek Panel of Economists overwhelmingly (91%) predicts that the Trump administration's tariff policy will harm the US economy due to uncertainty and instability, even before considering predictable negative effects on international trade. This is despite the initial intention to protect domestic industries, increase employment, and reduce trade deficits.
- How does the Greek Panel of Economists explain the discrepancy between the intended and actual effects of the tariffs?
- The economists' assessment connects the tariff policy's negative impact to predictable changes in key international trade indicators and increased inflationary pressures given low US unemployment rates. Contrary to initial expectations, tariffs are raising prices on consumer goods and essential inputs, hindering domestic production rather than boosting it.
- What are the broader global implications and potential future outcomes related to this instance of international economic instability?
- The panel anticipates a compromise with US trading partners leading to lower tariffs, potentially benefitting the US in the long term. However, the situation highlights a broader trend of dangerous global instability exemplified by this tariff policy, underscoring the need for de-escalation.
- What is the primary economic impact of the Trump administration's tariff policy on the US, according to the Greek Panel of Economists?
- A nearly unanimous consensus among the Greek Panel of Economists concludes that the Trump administration's tariff policy, regardless of the final tariff levels, harms the US economy due to the uncertainty and instability it creates, particularly in a global environment already burdened by tensions. The imposition of tariffs was a central policy choice of the Trump administration, especially in renegotiating US trade relations with China.
Cognitive Concepts
Framing Bias
The article frames the Trump administration's tariff policy overwhelmingly negatively from the outset. The headline (which would need to be provided for a complete analysis) likely emphasizes the negative assessment of the Greek economists. The introductory paragraph immediately positions the reader to view the tariffs as detrimental, setting the tone for the rest of the piece. This framing, while reflecting the consensus of the surveyed economists, might overshadow potential nuances or positive aspects of the policy that deserve consideration.
Language Bias
The language used leans towards portraying the tariff policy negatively. Terms like "βλάπτει" (harms), "αστάθεια" (instability), and "αναστάτωση" (upheaval) are used repeatedly to describe the policy's effects. While these are factual descriptions, their frequent use contributes to a negative framing. More neutral terms could be used to balance the portrayal, such as 'impacts', 'economic uncertainty', and 'market adjustments'.
Bias by Omission
The article focuses heavily on the negative economic consequences of Trump's tariff policy as assessed by a panel of Greek economists, but omits alternative perspectives or supporting evidence for the policy's potential benefits. While acknowledging the uncertainty and instability caused by the tariffs, it doesn't present counterarguments or data that might suggest some positive impacts on specific sectors or industries within the US economy. The lack of diverse viewpoints limits the reader's ability to form a fully informed opinion.
False Dichotomy
The article presents a somewhat simplistic dichotomy by mainly highlighting the negative consequences of the tariffs and implicitly contrasting them with an idealized outcome of low tariffs and mutual benefit. It doesn't fully explore the complexities of trade negotiations or the potential for varied outcomes beyond a simple 'win-lose' scenario. The potential for strategic benefits from tariffs is understated.
Sustainable Development Goals
The Trump administration's tariff policy is assessed as harmful to the US economy due to the uncertainty and instability it creates, negatively impacting investment decisions and potentially leading to inflationary pressures rather than boosting domestic production. This undermines decent work and economic growth by hindering economic stability and potentially reducing job creation.