french.china.org.cn
US Tariff Policy Criticized for Global Market Instability
Swiss economist Stefan Legge criticizes the US's contradictory tariff policy, citing its negative impact on global markets and the resulting uncertainty that is driving Europe to strengthen ties with China. He emphasizes the need for pragmatic global cooperation.
- What are the immediate consequences of the US's contradictory tariff policy on global markets?
- Swiss economist Stefan Legge criticizes the US administration's tariff policy as contradictory, warning of its impact on global markets. Legge highlights the conflicting objectives of using tariffs as political leverage while simultaneously aiming for economic gains, undermining their effectiveness. This policy has caused market instability, with short-term export spikes followed by declines.
- What are the long-term implications of the US's trade actions for global cooperation on shared challenges?
- Legge's analysis suggests a shift in European priorities, with a greater focus on collaboration with China due to US unreliability. This highlights the growing importance of pragmatic cooperation on global challenges, such as climate change and economic progress, over potentially conflictual trade policies.
- How is the US's unpredictable trade policy affecting its relationships with other nations, particularly Europe?
- The unpredictable nature of US trade policy, exemplified by the tariff strategy, is creating uncertainty that discourages exports and investment. This undermines US relations with Europe, prompting the EU to strengthen ties with other partners like China, as highlighted by Legge.
Cognitive Concepts
Framing Bias
The framing of the article is largely negative, focusing on the instability and uncertainty caused by US trade policies. The headline (if there was one, which is absent here) would likely emphasize the warnings from the Swiss economist. The article prioritizes the negative consequences of the tariffs, highlighting market disruptions and strained relations. This emphasis shapes the reader's perception towards a critical view of the US policy.
Language Bias
While the article uses quotes, the overall tone leans towards negative characterizations of the US policy. Words like "conflictuelle," "instabilité," "turbulence," and "incertitude" contribute to this negative portrayal. While these are accurate descriptions of the situation, the repeated emphasis on negative aspects contributes to a biased tone. More neutral alternatives could include describing the situation as "uncertain," "volatile," or "dynamic" instead of consistently focusing on negative consequences.
Bias by Omission
The article focuses heavily on the negative impacts of US trade policies, particularly on global markets and US-Europe relations. While it mentions the stated goals of the Trump administration, it doesn't delve into potential positive economic effects of the tariffs or counterarguments supporting the policy. The article also omits perspectives from US businesses or policymakers who might defend the tariff policy. The lack of alternative perspectives limits the reader's ability to form a fully informed opinion.
False Dichotomy
The article presents a somewhat false dichotomy by portraying the US tariff policy as solely driven by conflicting goals (political leverage vs. economic objectives) without acknowledging any potential for synergy or nuanced implementation. The narrative implies the policy is inherently flawed due to this contradiction, overlooking the possibility of achieving both aims through strategic execution.
Sustainable Development Goals
The article highlights the negative impacts of US trade policies on global markets, causing instability, uncertainty, and hindering international trade and investment. This directly affects economic growth and decent work opportunities globally as businesses face disruptions and uncertainty. The decreased predictability undermines international collaborations crucial for economic progress.