Donald trump threatening to impose 35% tariff

Rather than addressing my argument, con goes into nitpicking the wording. Yes, obviously tariffs are put on products and not on companies; the statement clearly meant that the tariffs would be put on the products the company would be shipping back to the USA. In fact, I even stated that it would be put on chinese products (and not companies); the only real reason I wrote american companies is due to the word limit and because I'm not spending time editing my debate as well. Then con goes on to give one example of a reason a tariff is put on a product. (Obviously this is only ONE reason; there are clearly others...for example, putting it on companies who are trying to outsource labor to cheap 3rd world countries.) What con also fails to understand is that although clearly having Acme move part of its company overseas may be beneficial for ACME and the consumer, it's devastating towards the employees. Furthermore, he also doesn't think about the negative externalities. Although the consumer may be paying slightly more for the product due to the tariff, the consumer will also be paying more tax money to support the unemployeed people who just lost their jobs. Furthermore, the government will be collecting revenue in the form of tariffs. Although the consumers may lose $ by having to pay more, the overall benefit for america is clearly positive. What con also fails to understand is that labor in third world countries is cheaper for a couple of reasons. First, people there are extremely poor and desperate and are therefore willing to work for pennies on the dollar. Moreover, their labor laws are extremely weak; in other words, these laborers also face harsh working conditions. Here is one of many articles describing the typical situation: http://www.bbc.com... Again, no one claimed that it was illegal to move their country; however, it's the government's job to protect ALL of its people. If we were to allow free movement of companies, the USA would suffer greatly. It's the government's job to intervene on behalf of its people to avoid them being exploited. No one is claiming that Acme isn't being smart by trying to move their company overseas. They are. That's called smart business. Which is why we need government intervention, because Acme's best interests aren't the same as America's best interests. Con then brings up "carrier" as an example, claiming that trump "spun" the news to make it look more beneficial than it was. Well, yes, that's obviously true, but just because the news was "spun" to become more beneficial doesn't mean that it wasn't beneficial without the spin; it clearly was due to the many reasons I outlined in my last argument, as well as this one. Trump's spin on the matter is irrelevant; the debate is simple. A threat of tariffs against the products of US companies (happy con?) who move overseas is clearly beneficial for AMERICA. It may not be beneficial for Acme or the consumers of that product, but the benefits of the threat VASTLY outweigh the negatives. In almost every situation there will be winners and losers. Rather than seeing the entire picture, con merely focuses on the losers.