I have the right, you don't have the right. Why democracy and the rule of law can coexist. #Centrist - The Best Online Debate Website | DebateIsland.com - Debate Anything The Best Online Debate Website | DebateIsland.com
frame

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

DebateIsland.com is the largest online debate website globally where anyone can anonymously and easily debate online, casually or formally, while connecting with their friends and others. Users, regardless of debating skill level, can civilly debate just about anything online in a text-based online debate website that supports five easy-to-use and fun debating formats ranging from Casual, to Formalish, to Lincoln-Douglas Formal. In addition, people can improve their debating skills with the help of revolutionary artificial intelligence-powered technology on our debate website. DebateIsland is totally free and provides the best online debate experience of any debate website.


Communities




I have the right, you don't have the right. Why democracy and the rule of law can coexist. #Centrist

Debate Information

As an individualist and a centrist Democrat, I see the value of the rule of law. I also see the value of a representative democracy which is preferable to mob rule. I support a woman's right to choose as long as the fetus does not have brainwaves. I believe in religious liberty to a certain extent, but not any shariah from any religion, Muslim or otherwise. I support free speech that does not make death or rape threats or libel and slander someone. If you are going to accuse me of something, I better be guilty. You know who you are. I support gun right TO A CERTAIN extent, but given weapons of war to terrorist and mental patients is not a right. How I die is between my God and myself. Mind your own business. No, I am not suicidal. I just want the option available to me if I were paralyzed, or I was terminally ill. Marijuana should be available by prescription. Men are not evil. I am a woman who does not care if a man calls me babe or sweetheart. Feminists are annoying. I support Israel, but that is not an excuse to be a jerk to Arabs. I question the political binary, and want free trade versus fair trade explained to me. Having an R next to you name does not make you my enemy. A 13 year old girl should not be having sex. Let kids be kids. In short, I am a centrist, and anyone is welcome to debate with me on anything.



Debra AI Prediction

Predicted To Win
Predicted To Win
Tie

Details +




Post Argument Now Debate Details +

    Arguments


  • Polaris95Polaris95 147 Pts   -  
    Do you think the Palestines have no right to the lands that were originally theirs?
    piloteerZombieguy1987
  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 4676 Pts   -  
    Free trade = I offer a basket of apples for sale to my Mexican colleague for $20, my Mexican colleague pays me $20 and takes the basket of apples. Both sides are happy.

    "Fair" trade = I want to offer a basked of apples for sale to my Mexican colleague for $20, but Mexico has instituted a 10% tariff on apples from the US, hence I have to pay $2 to the Mexican government, so I have to offer my Mexican colleague the price of $22 to maintain my profit. My president supports a notion of "fair" trade and, in turn, institutes a 10% tariff on apple purchases from Mexican enterpreneurs - hence, in addition to this $22, my colleague has to pay $2.2 over to my country, making his loss equal to $24.2. He is unhappy with such a price and refuses to pay. We start painful negotiations, each ending up cutting our profit and, ultimately, being discouraged from trading any further.

    "Fair" trade in this interpretation is a notion that there are "winners" and "losers" in the international trade, and the state that manages to get the overall better profit off one trade deal wins over the other one. It is wrong on many levels, mainly that it is only the governments that win in this case, while the actual traders on both sides lose, start trading less - and, in the end, arguably both governments suffer losses as well. Everybody loses, in other words.

    Basically the same thing as with regards to free market approach vs mercantile approach (i.e. controlled market) domestically: the latter can have certain benefits over the former short-term, but long-term it is extremely damaging to the economy.
  • CYDdhartaCYDdharta 1815 Pts   -   edited October 2018
    MayCaesar said:
    Free trade = I offer a basket of apples for sale to my Mexican colleague for $20, my Mexican colleague pays me $20 and takes the basket of apples. Both sides are happy.

    "Fair" trade = I want to offer a basked of apples for sale to my Mexican colleague for $20, but Mexico has instituted a 10% tariff on apples from the US, hence I have to pay $2 to the Mexican government, so I have to offer my Mexican colleague the price of $22 to maintain my profit. My president supports a notion of "fair" trade and, in turn, institutes a 10% tariff on apple purchases from Mexican enterpreneurs - hence, in addition to this $22, my colleague has to pay $2.2 over to my country, making his loss equal to $24.2. He is unhappy with such a price and refuses to pay. We start painful negotiations, each ending up cutting our profit and, ultimately, being discouraged from trading any further.

    "Fair" trade in this interpretation is a notion that there are "winners" and "losers" in the international trade, and the state that manages to get the overall better profit off one trade deal wins over the other one. It is wrong on many levels, mainly that it is only the governments that win in this case, while the actual traders on both sides lose, start trading less - and, in the end, arguably both governments suffer losses as well. Everybody loses, in other words.

    Basically the same thing as with regards to free market approach vs mercantile approach (i.e. controlled market) domestically: the latter can have certain benefits over the former short-term, but long-term it is extremely damaging to the economy.

    If "free trade" is when neither side has a tariff and "fair trade" is when both sides have a tariff, what is it called when only one side has a tariff?  Unfair trade.  Combating unfair trade seems like a worthy cause.

  • CYDdhartaCYDdharta 1815 Pts   -  

    I support gun right TO A CERTAIN extent, but given weapons of war to terrorist and mental patients is not a right.


    "Weapons of war" are highly restricted, and terrorists and mental patients are banned from owning any kind of firearm or destructive device.
  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 4676 Pts   -   edited October 2018
    @CYDdharta ;

    "Unfair" to whom? One side introducing a tariff negatively impacts the trade on both sides. Another side introducing a mutual tariff negatively impacts it even further. A one-sided tariff is less harmful than a two-sided tariff.

    It is like in a car crash. If you were waiting at a red light and a pickup truck slammed into you at full speed, you, of course, can decide to retaliate and also strike it at full speed to get a "fair crash" - but, as you well understand, it is not the most practical way to act.
  • piloteerpiloteer 1531 Pts   -   edited October 2018
    I don't think the idea of fair trade has anything to do with tariffs. Fair trade is when producers from underdeveloped nations sell their products for a little more then they're worth so the workers can get slightly better pay wages. It has nothing at all to do with tariffs. It is a decision by the companies themselves to sell at a higher rate. It is a decision by the consumers to buy at a higher rate for the purpose of charity. No government enforces this policy. Newmans own, is a fair trade organization. 

    Free trade is when two or more countries agree to let trade between them flow freely, either without tariffs, or tariffs that are set at the same percentage on all sides.
  • CYDdhartaCYDdharta 1815 Pts   -  
    MayCaesar said:
    @CYDdharta ;

    "Unfair" to whom? One side introducing a tariff negatively impacts the trade on both sides. Another side introducing a mutual tariff negatively impacts it even further. A one-sided tariff is less harmful than a two-sided tariff.

    It is like in a car crash. If you were waiting at a red light and a pickup truck slammed into you at full speed, you, of course, can decide to retaliate and also strike it at full speed to get a "fair crash" - but, as you well understand, it is not the most practical way to act.

    Unfair to the side that isn't imposing a tariff on the other, obviously.

    Your car crash analogy doesn't make much sense.  First, except for insurance fraud scams, crashes are unintentional.  There is nothing unintentional about levying a tariff.  Second, both vehicles are damaged or destroyed.  There is no damage when only one country levies a tariff, in fact it benefits from the additional governmental revenue.  Regardless, if a pickup truck slams into me at full speed, either I'll sue the driver or the state will prosecute him or both.  I won't just call a tow truck, fix my vehicle at my own expense and carry on as if nothing ever happened.

  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 4676 Pts   -   edited October 2018
    @CYDdharta ;

    You have not studied basic economics then, if you do not know how additional fees affect the price of goods and how they offset the supply-demand balance.

    In the regular conditions in the example above, the Mexican merchant will pay me $20 and get $20 worth of apples. We both own the goods worth $20.
    If Mexico introduces a 10% tariff, then roughly the Mexican merchant will pay me $21 and get $19 worth of apples; I will pay the extra $2 as per tariff. We both own the goods worth $19.
    If the US in addition to that introduces a 10% tariff, then... I'll spare you the details, but roughly we both will own the goods worth $17.9.
    While this loss can be mitigated by the fact that different goods have different worth on different markets, both of us are much worse off after the deal, that we would be in the conditions of only one tariff imposed, and unbelievably worse off in case both tariffs are in place - given how low the marginal profit from international trade tends to be.

    The only immediate winner in this case are the governments - but since governments are ineffective at utilizing resources by their own design, in the end even the country as a whole that is supposed to "win", loses.

    This is basic economics, something no educated economist will deny. That is why the opposition to Trump's "fair" tariffs among the economists is near-unanimous, regardless of their ideological or party affiliation.

    The reasoning behind "they imposed a tariff, so we must impose an equal tariff in return" is nothing more than "an eye for an eye" mentality, which is well known to be impractical.

    ---

    Something advocates for tariffs, high sale taxes and so on tend to forget is that it is not just one side that pays these fees: both sides end up paying roughly equally. The tariffs are supposed to bring benefit to the US, but the US traders take part in paying off those tariffs as a result of shifting price balance.
    CYDdhartapiloteer
  • CYDdhartaCYDdharta 1815 Pts   -  
    MayCaesar said:
    @CYDdharta ;

    You have not studied basic economics then, if you do not know how additional fees affect the price of goods and how they offset the supply-demand balance.

    In the regular conditions in the example above, the Mexican merchant will pay me $20 and get $20 worth of apples. We both own the goods worth $20.
    If Mexico introduces a 10% tariff, then roughly the Mexican merchant will pay me $21 and get $19 worth of apples; I will pay the extra $2 as per tariff. We both own the goods worth $19.
    If the US in addition to that introduces a 10% tariff, then... I'll spare you the details, but roughly we both will own the goods worth $17.9.
    While this loss can be mitigated by the fact that different goods have different worth on different markets, both of us are much worse off after the deal, that we would be in the conditions of only one tariff imposed, and unbelievably worse off in case both tariffs are in place - given how low the marginal profit from international trade tends to be.

    The only immediate winner in this case are the governments - but since governments are ineffective at utilizing resources by their own design, in the end even the country as a whole that is supposed to "win", loses.

    This is basic economics, something no educated economist will deny. That is why the opposition to Trump's "fair" tariffs among the economists is near-unanimous, regardless of their ideological or party affiliation.

    The reasoning behind "they imposed a tariff, so we must impose an equal tariff in return" is nothing more than "an eye for an eye" mentality, which is well known to be impractical.

    ---

    Something advocates for tariffs, high sale taxes and so on tend to forget is that it is not just one side that pays these fees: both sides end up paying roughly equally. The tariffs are supposed to bring benefit to the US, but the US traders take part in paying off those tariffs as a result of shifting price balance.

    You're ignoring the money that gets paid to the government.  No doubt governments are inefficient, but they're still necessary and they still need and demand money to operate.  If they don't get that money from tariffs, they get it from somewhere else, like taxes on citizens and domestic businesses.  So if you pay $2 in tariffs for $20 of Mexican apples, then the person you bought them from has to pay the Mexican government $2 less in taxes. Trump doesn't want any tariffs, they're just a means to ending tariffs that have already been imposed on the US.  What isn't working is just ignoring other countries when they impose tariffs on the US.
  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 4676 Pts   -   edited October 2018
    @CYDdharta ;

    This assumes that the money you pay to the Mexican government goes directly into the pocket of that Mexican trader. This is not even remotely true in a real situation. In reality, the value is just lost. Why is it so important to you that the Mexican government has in the short term profited from this trade? What is more important to you: the well-being of the American trader, or the well-being of the president of Mexico? Seems to me like a usual emotional desire to "hit back", ignoring the practical side of the matter.

    The government needs money to function, that is true - but taxing international trade, or any trade for that matter, is one of the poorer ways to approach it, and it is known to lead to the adverse effect on the budget overall.

    Ending the hostile tariffs is what Trump should be really focusing on. Not "If they have a 25% tariff, then we will introduce a 25% tariff", hurting both sides even more - but "Okay, guys, let us talk and find a way to end this tariff business on both sides once and for all". It is more difficult than brute-forcing a new tariff, indeed - but the president's job is not supposed to be easy in the first place.

    As it is, Trump ignores the basics of economics and thinks that his voodoo approach is going to get the US anywhere. I am not sure why it has to be explained every time - but, contrary to the popular view, economics is not some sort of an online game where you can just "try stuff" for fun; economics is, actually, a very difficult field with strict rules and patterns that cannot be broken simply by willing it.

    Socialism does not work, no matter how much its proponents would like it to work. Protectionism also does not work, no matter how reasonable it seems to some. You cannot defy the nature, just because you wish to.

    ---

    It is also strange to me that Trump, who overall clearly recognizes the importance of lowering the governmental intervention into economical activities and set cutting regulations off and lowering taxes as his primary economical goal - has the exact opposite view when it comes to the international trade. Trade is trade, international or not, and the same general rules apply to all instances of it.
  • CYDdhartaCYDdharta 1815 Pts   -  
    MayCaesar said:
    @CYDdharta ;

    This assumes that the money you pay to the Mexican government goes directly into the pocket of that Mexican trader. This is not even remotely true in a real situation. In reality, the value is just lost. Why is it so important to you that the Mexican government has in the short term profited from this trade? What is more important to you: the well-being of the American trader, or the well-being of the president of Mexico? Seems to me like a usual emotional desire to "hit back", ignoring the practical side of the matter.

    The government needs money to function, that is true - but taxing international trade, or any trade for that matter, is one of the poorer ways to approach it, and it is known to lead to the adverse effect on the budget overall.

    Ending the hostile tariffs is what Trump should be really focusing on. Not "If they have a 25% tariff, then we will introduce a 25% tariff", hurting both sides even more - but "Okay, guys, let us talk and find a way to end this tariff business on both sides once and for all". It is more difficult than brute-forcing a new tariff, indeed - but the president's job is not supposed to be easy in the first place.

    As it is, Trump ignores the basics of economics and thinks that his voodoo approach is going to get the US anywhere. I am not sure why it has to be explained every time - but, contrary to the popular view, economics is not some sort of an online game where you can just "try stuff" for fun; economics is, actually, a very difficult field with strict rules and patterns that cannot be broken simply by willing it.

    Socialism does not work, no matter how much its proponents would like it to work. Protectionism also does not work, no matter how reasonable it seems to some. You cannot defy the nature, just because you wish to.

    ---

    It is also strange to me that Trump, who overall clearly recognizes the importance of lowering the governmental intervention into economical activities and set cutting regulations off and lowering taxes as his primary economical goal - has the exact opposite view when it comes to the international trade. Trade is trade, international or not, and the same general rules apply to all instances of it.

    ?!?  Are you paying no attention at all???  Ending hostile tariffs is ALL Trump focusing on, at least as far as trade goes.  He is neither socialist nor protectionist.  Retaliatory tariffs, and he has made clear every one of them is precisely that, are simply a means to an end.  For decades, we've tried asking nicely for other countries to lower or eliminate their tariffs and and have been met with nothing but laughter.  [Insert the definition of insanity here]  Our weakness has been undeniable and exploited time and time again.  Do you really think the best way to get open markets and get more free and fair trade conditions is to take more of the actions that have failed in the past?!?   That's is the very definition of lunacy.

  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 4676 Pts   -   edited October 2018
    @CYDdharta
     
    Once again, original tariffs hurt both sides, and retaliatory tariffs hurt both sides. Neither the US nor anyone else was exploited; the traders are who was exploited. And you decide to exploit them from both sides now, as a way of getting a "fair deal". Someone takes an action damaging every trader, you take an action in response damaging every trader - and then claim that this way you have eliminated your weakness... This is a tortured logic based on emotions and nothing else.

    The notion that retaliatory tariffs facilitate ending hostile tariffs is something out of this world. You do not eliminate tariffs by starting trade wars; you eliminate them by negotiations. Trade wars only lead to tariffs raising exponentially on both sides, and the recent events are just one more piece of evidence in support of this centuries-old observation.

    You are right, doing something that has not worked in the past is not reasonable. It does not mean, however, that doing anything that is different from what has failed in the past is reasonable. You take an unsolved problem, take the action that makes that problem explode tenfold - and then call it a better way? No, my good man, this is not how it works. ;)
  • YeshuaBoughtYeshuaBought 669 Pts   -  
    @Polaris95 I think we should have Jewish and Arab people share a country called Israel, and that both Israeli and Palestinian people have done bad things to each other. Hamas and the Zionists are equally bad. 
  • CYDdhartaCYDdharta 1815 Pts   -   edited October 2018
    MayCaesar said:
    @CYDdharta
     
    Once again, original tariffs hurt both sides, and retaliatory tariffs hurt both sides. Neither the US nor anyone else was exploited; the traders are who was exploited. And you decide to exploit them from both sides now, as a way of getting a "fair deal". Someone takes an action damaging every trader, you take an action in response damaging every trader - and then claim that this way you have eliminated your weakness... This is a tortured logic based on emotions and nothing else.

    The notion that retaliatory tariffs facilitate ending hostile tariffs is something out of this world. You do not eliminate tariffs by starting trade wars; you eliminate them by negotiations. Trade wars only lead to tariffs raising exponentially on both sides, and the recent events are just one more piece of evidence in support of this centuries-old observation.

    You are right, doing something that has not worked in the past is not reasonable. It does not mean, however, that doing anything that is different from what has failed in the past is reasonable. You take an unsolved problem, take the action that makes that problem explode tenfold - and then call it a better way? No, my good man, this is not how it works. ;)

    If the original tariffs hurt both sides equally, no government would impose them.  Since every country on the planet does impose tariffs, that is simply not the case.  Obviously the side imposing the tariffs gains a benefit at the expense of the side paying the tariff.  Allowing the situation to continue unabated is a sure-fire way of ensuring that the tariffs will not only continue, but that other countries will also take advantage and impose tariffs of their own.

    There is no denying that retaliatory tariffs brings the both sides to the negotiating table.  Even the threat of them, if serious, brings them to the table with the side threatening tariffs in a better position.  Recent events prove that this works.

    piloteer
  • YeshuaBoughtYeshuaBought 669 Pts   -  
    @MayCaesar Free trade sounds awesome then. I support it.
    piloteer
  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 4676 Pts   -   edited October 2018
    @CYDdharta

    Governments regularly implement policies that hurt their respective citizens. Obama's healthcare reform is a good example: such reforms do not work and harm everyone, but he went through with it anyway due to his misunderstanding of economics. Same here: Trump misunderstands the economics, his party unfortunately does not push back hard enough, and as a result harmful policies are implemented.

    Tariffs do have a potential to improve the nation's well-being in rare cases of international monopolies suppressing the competition, but I am not aware of such cases present currently on the planet.

    Retaliatory tariffs do not help any more than a nuclear strike in response to a nuclear strike helps: it may seem "fair", but it is very impractical and leads to mutual destruction. When your trade partner misbehaves and hurts you, it is important to address the situation - mutual tariffs simply happen to not be a proper response.

    What advice do economists give to developing nations that are trying to escape the heritage of failing economical policies? "Turn your country into investment heaven". Essentially, make "anti-tariffs", so the new investors get financial assistance from the government. As counter-intuitive as it sounds at the first glance, it leads to a heavy influx of capital into the country. The immediate loss due to the tariffs going to foreign investors instead of your own citizens is more than compensated for long-term by the capital flowing into the country from private investors.

    It may seem like the country introducing a positive tariff gets a better deal out of the trade - but the realities of the incentive-based economy make the result exactly the opposite.
    piloteer
  • CYDdhartaCYDdharta 1815 Pts   -  
    MayCaesar said:
    @CYDdharta

    Governments regularly implement policies that hurt their respective citizens. Obama's healthcare reform is a good example: such reforms do not work and harm everyone, but he went through with it anyway due to his misunderstanding of economics. Same here: Trump misunderstands the economics, his party unfortunately does not push back hard enough, and as a result harmful policies are implemented.

    Tariffs do have a potential to improve the nation's well-being in rare cases of international monopolies suppressing the competition, but I am not aware of such cases present currently on the planet.

    Retaliatory tariffs do not help any more than a nuclear strike in response to a nuclear strike helps: it may seem "fair", but it is very impractical and leads to mutual destruction. When your trade partner misbehaves and hurts you, it is important to address the situation - mutual tariffs simply happen to not be a proper response.

    What advice do economists give to developing nations that are trying to escape the heritage of failing economical policies? "Turn your country into investment heaven". Essentially, make "anti-tariffs", so the new investors get financial assistance from the government. As counter-intuitive as it sounds at the first glance, it leads to a heavy influx of capital into the country. The immediate loss due to the tariffs going to foreign investors instead of your own citizens is more than compensated for long-term by the capital flowing into the country from private investors.

    It may seem like the country introducing a positive tariff gets a better deal out of the trade - but the realities of the incentive-based economy make the result exactly the opposite.

    Not ever country has implemented 0bamacare, in fact no other country has implemented 0bamacare.  If Trump's policies are so detrimental, you think you'd see it reflected in economic indicators.  But the opposite is true.  The fact is, Trump's leadership has been vital in creating the best economy in at least half a century.

    ...and again, your penchant for hyperbolic and inaccurate metaphors rears it's head.  "Tariffs are a nuclear strike" yada yada yada.  No, a nuclear strike would be cutting off all trade.  No one is doing that.  No one, at least in this administration, is even suggesting such a thing.  Retaliatory tariffs are merely a tactic used in trade wars being waged against the US. 

    As for the "anti-tariff" countries, want to know what every single one of them has in common?  That's right, they all have tariffs.  People don't put their money in investment havens, they put it in tax havens.  Ireland, Luxembourg, and Switzerland are all considered among the best  tax havens in the world, but all of those countries are members of the EU and thus not really in control of their own economies, and certainly not in control of the tariffs they impose.  Considering the thousands of tariffs each of those tax havens is required to charge, it seems tariffs have very little to do with getting people's money into a country's economy, taxes do.

  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 4676 Pts   -   edited October 2018
    @CYDdharta ;

    The reason the economy is doing so well currently is because of the tax reform and assault on regulations launched by the current administration and the Republican party. The tariffs implemented by the administration do not offset those achievements completely, and that is why the economy overall is performing very well - but it would perform even better all other things equal, plus the tariffs not implemented.

    The nuclear strike metaphor was simply to illustrate the problem with the concept of retaliation not coupled with practical reasoning. Retaliation may harm both sides, and it does in case of the international trade restrictions.

    Most countries in the world having tariffs does not mean that tariffs have a positive effect on any of their economies. A country may be an investment heaven, and yet still have tariffs in place harming specific sectors of its economy. I am not saying that what Trump is doing is that unprecedented, or leading to a doomsday scenario - all I am saying is that the tariffs are harmful for the economy, and it is clear to everyone who thought about these subjects and studied the economics some.

    Ultimately, every single economy in the world has a lot of mechanisms in place that occurred as a consequence of populism and have no grounds in reality. Singapore is probably the only country in the world that officially did away with populism and implemented a purely meritocratic system, and that country features no tariffs (as far as I know) and is one of the wealthiest countries in the world - despite merely 40 years ago having been an extremely poor third world nation. The US can learn something from their approach to economics - if not from their approach to human rights and freedoms.
Sign In or Register to comment.

Back To Top

DebateIsland.com

| The Best Online Debate Experience!
© 2021 DebateIsland.com, all rights reserved. DebateIsland.com | The Best Online Debate Experience! Debate topics you care about in a friendly and fun way. Come try us out now. We are totally free!

Contact us

customerservice@debateisland.com
Terms of Service

Get In Touch