spanish.china.org.cn
US Protectionist Trade Policies Slow Global Growth
The US administration's new reciprocal tariffs, imposing a 10 percent minimum base tariff and higher rates on specific trading partners, are causing widespread economic uncertainty and slowing global growth, according to economists and analysts.
- How is the US's protectionist trade policy affecting global trade and economic growth?
- The US trade agenda, driven by a protectionist "America First" ideology, is undermining the rules-based multilateral trade system. The imposition of reciprocal tariffs, intended to reduce the US trade deficit, is criticized for its negative impact on global growth and increasing economic uncertainty.
- What are the immediate economic consequences of the US administration's new reciprocal tariffs?
- The US administration's protectionist trade policies are harming the global economy, causing uncertainty and slowing growth. A 10 percent minimum base tariff and higher rates on some trading partners have triggered widespread opposition and market sell-offs. Economists predict potentially irreversible damage to both US and global economies.
- What are the long-term implications of the US trade policy shift for the international rules-based trading system?
- The US approach risks escalating trade tensions and undermining the international trading order. Its focus on unilateral actions violates WTO principles of reciprocity and multilateral consultation, potentially leading to a shift from rules-based dispute resolution to power struggles. This could cause long-term damage to global economic stability.
Cognitive Concepts
Framing Bias
The narrative is framed to portray the US trade policy as reckless, unpredictable, and damaging to the global economy. The headline and introductory paragraphs immediately establish a negative tone, emphasizing the disruptive and harmful effects of the policy. The use of words like "erratic," "proteccionist," and "harmful" contributes to this negative framing. The structure of the article prioritizes negative consequences, giving less weight to any potential counterarguments or mitigating factors.
Language Bias
The article uses strong, negative language to describe the US trade policy. Words and phrases such as "erratic and extensive protectionist trade agenda," "throwing sand in the gears of the world economy," "potentially irreversible," "suffocates investment plans," and "malignant tumor" carry strong negative connotations. More neutral alternatives could include "unconventional," "trade policy focused on domestic interests," "significant economic effects," "impedes investment," and "economic disruption." The repetitive use of negative terms throughout the article reinforces a biased perspective.
Bias by Omission
The analysis focuses heavily on the negative impacts of US trade policies, giving less attention to potential counterarguments or perspectives that might support these policies. While it mentions that the US has a service surplus, it doesn't delve into the details or complexities of that sector's contribution to the overall economic picture. The article also omits discussion of any potential benefits of the reciprocal tariffs, focusing solely on the negative consequences.
False Dichotomy
The article presents a false dichotomy by framing the US trade policy as solely detrimental and ignoring any potential positive outcomes or nuances within the policy. It emphasizes a narrative of solely negative consequences without exploring the complexity of trade relations.
Sustainable Development Goals
The article highlights that the US administration's protectionist trade policies are negatively impacting global economic growth, hindering trade, and causing uncertainty in the market. This directly affects decent work and economic growth by reducing investment, disrupting supply chains, and potentially leading to job losses and decreased economic opportunities worldwide. The imposition of reciprocal tariffs is cited as a key factor leading to slower economic growth in both the US and globally. Quotes from economists and analysts emphasize the counterproductive nature of these policies and their harmful effects on the global economic landscape.