Using the argument claim hexagon model to analyse different arguments about tariffs

It’s also been salutary to observe how hard it can be in a polarised environment for people to engage with arguments that are in direct contradiction to their own views. This is exacerbated by the fact that arguments about policy have the most complex structure of all arguments – which also makes it hard for people to get to grips with new or opposing ideas.

The purpose of this article is:

to describe the overall structure of policy claims.
to use the argument claim hexagon model to analyse three very different approaches to the issue of tariffs.

The argument claim hexagon model

Argument Claim Hexagon

The argument claim hexagon model, which I developed last year, is designed to provide a structured framework for analysing arguments.

The model identifies the six different categories of claim used in an argument:

Fact – what is true or false?
Cause and effect – what causes what?
Definition and classification – how should something be defined or classified?
Interpretation – how should something be understood?
Evaluation – is something good or bad?
Action – what should be done?

The model is based on two key premises:

that all statements about reality can ultimately be expressed as one of the six types of claim.
that all claims, apart from claims of fact, will have at least one other type of claim providing support.

You can read more about the argument claim hexagon model here.

When thinking about tariffs, it’s important to realise that claims of action are the most complex category of claim. This is because they are made up of three separate components:

Problem: providing an accurate analysis of the problem and how it has developed
Desired results: establishing the desired results that will actually lead to beneficial changes
Solution: identifying a solution that solves the problem, achieves the desired results and can be implemented successfully.

What makes a claim of action even more complicated is that each of the three components will include most of, if not all of, the other claim categories. And, generally, for a claim of action to work, effective arguments need to be made for all three of the components.

So, for example, there’s no point doing a well-argued analysis of a problem if you then choose a solution that is not effective. And there’s no point making a great case for your solution if your analysis of the problem is incorrect with the result that your solution doesn’t actually address the problem.

When one understands the complexity of claims of action, it’s no wonder that people struggle with discussions about policy.

However, one of the benefits of the argument claim hexagon model is that it provides a structured framework to help identify all the different elements of an argument about policy. This can help people not just understand an argument better but also identify potential gaps in an argument and where they may need more information.

Analysing the arguments

Matthew Prince, Ray Dalio and Ben Hunt have provided three of the most interesting discussions about tariffs I have come across this week. They all have their own individual take on the issue.

I asked ChatGPT’s 4o model to analyse their arguments in terms of:

their analysis of the problem
the results they thought were beneficial
the solutions they were proposing.

And for each component, I asked ChatGPT to identify the different supporting claims (fact, cause and effect, definition and classification, interpretation, evaluation and action) being used.

I’ve used the ChatGPT analyses for illustrative purposes to show how the argument claim hexagon model can be used. While the output produced seems to be broadly accurate, I would have allocated some of the subsidiary claims to different components.

Summary of the three arguments

Below are summaries of the core arguments that Matthew Prince, Ray Dalio and Ben Hunt are making.

Matthew Prince

The Trump administration’s trade chaos may mask a deliberate strategy to isolate China economically. By imposing universal tariffs, the U.S. forces nations to choose between trading with America or China. This could realign global trade and contain China’s rise without direct confrontation.

Ray Dalio

The world is undergoing a systemic breakdown across monetary, political, and geopolitical orders. These crises are part of a historical “Big Cycle” seen in past empire transitions. Focusing on surface issues like tariffs distracts from the deeper structural risks and needed reforms.

Ben Hunt

The U.S. is abandoning Pax Americana’s coordination game and shifting to a destructive competition model. Tariffs and “America First” strategies break global trust and create a Prisoner’s Dilemma dynamic. Once trust is broken, a return to cooperation becomes nearly impossible—leading to lasting instability.

1. Matthew Prince

Matthew Prince is the CEO of tech firm Cloudflare. The goal of his April 9 2025 X Post summarised below was to assume that there was a rationale behind the imposition of the Trump tariffs and then to elucidate what that rationale might be.

Summary: The Trump administration’s trade chaos may mask a deliberate strategy to isolate China economically. By imposing universal tariffs, the U.S. forces nations to choose between trading with America or China. This could realign global trade and contain China’s rise without direct confrontation.

🧨 1. Analysis of the Problem

🔹 Main Claim of Action (Problem):

The Trump administration perceives China as a strategic threat and believes the current global economic structure enables China’s rise. The existing trade dynamics make it difficult to isolate or weaken China directly through bilateral action.

🔹 Subsidiary Claims:

Fact:
- China has become a global export powerhouse.
- China is increasingly nationalistic and less receptive to foreign brands.
- The U.S. is the world’s largest consumer market.
- The U.S. is relatively self-sufficient in key resources (energy, food, water).
Cause and Effect:
- Imposing tariffs only on China → Chinese goods get rerouted through other markets.
- Imposing universal tariffs → Everyone is forced to renegotiate trade with the U.S.
- Global overreliance on China’s exports → potential leverage point if others are forced to choose.
Definition and Classification:
- Tariffs redefined not as a purely economic tool, but a geostrategic weapon.
- Trade policy reframed as a form of soft containment or decapitation of an adversary.
Interpretation:
- The administration’s economic incoherence may be intentional strategic opacity, akin to negotiation tactics.
- Trump’s unpredictability may be a deliberate feature of a larger strategy to unsettle global norms.
Evaluation:
- While the strategy may be harmful to the U.S. economy in the short run, it could be strategically rational in weakening China.
- Standard economic analysis fails to capture the geopolitical intent of the administration’s actions.

🔹 Assumptions:

China is a structural threat: Prince assumes that China’s rise is incompatible with continued U.S. global dominance.
The Trump administration is strategic, not chaotic: Despite appearances, the White House may be pursuing a coherent, though opaque, strategy.
Tariffs alone won’t isolate China: Bilateral tariffs are insufficient because China can reroute exports and maintain influence through global trade.

🎯 2. Desired Results

🔹 Main Claim of Action (Goal):

Force a global economic realignment that isolates China by compelling nations to choose between trading with the U.S. or China. This would curb China’s growth and influence while restoring American leverage in global trade.

🔹 Subsidiary Claims:

Evaluation:
- A decoupled world order could strategically weaken China and create new opportunities for allies (e.g., Vietnam, Indonesia).
- While costly, the U.S. is one of the few countries that can withstand such a self-imposed economic shock.
Cause and Effect:
- Universal tariffs → countries must choose → isolation of China → China’s global position weakened.
- Threat of exclusion from U.S. markets → stronger negotiation leverage for the U.S.
Interpretation:
- The real target isn’t global trade balance, but China’s geopolitical influence.
- This approach resembles a soft power Cold War, where trade replaces missiles as leverage.
Definition:
- “Winning” in this context isn’t about cheap goods or GDP—it’s about strategic containment and influence.

🔹 Assumptions:

Universal tariffs will force a global choice: If the U.S. imposes tariffs on everyone, it can force nations to choose between aligning with China or the U.S.
Most countries will choose the U.S.: The U.S. remains the world’s largest consumer market, giving it unparalleled leverage despite its own costs.
China’s export dependence is a vulnerability: Unlike the U.S., China cannot easily survive a coordinated trade realignment against it.

🛠️ 3. Proposed Solution

🔹 Main Claim of Action (Solution):

Implement universal tariffs to destabilize China’s export economy and force a global choice: align with the U.S. or with China.

🔹 Subsidiary Claims:

Action:
- Impose tariffs on everyone, not just China.
- Force bilateral negotiations with countries to align trade policy with U.S. strategic interests.
- Offer inducements (e.g., trade access, investment) to countries willing to pivot away from China.
Fact:
- Countries like Germany, France, and Italy have limited market penetration in China.
- U.S. import demand still dominates global trade relevance.
Cause and Effect:
- If universal tariffs force choice → most nations will pick the U.S. → China becomes isolated.
- Manufacturing won’t fully reshore, but enough disruption will occur to change supply chains.
Evaluation:
- This plan is coherent, even if economically controversial.
- It assumes negotiation leverage matters more than efficiency.
Interpretation:
- Trump’s strategy may appear chaotic, but could reflect a deeper, calculated disruption strategy aimed at reshaping global norms.

🔹 Assumptions:

Economic leverage can be weaponized geopolitically: Market access is a form of soft power, and tariffs are tools of strategic influence.
A bipolar trade order is viable: A world split into U.S.-aligned and China-aligned trade zones is seen as a plausible future.
Trump’s negotiation style is intentionally disruptive: Strategic opacity, unpredictability, and even deception are part of the plan—not policy failure.

🧩 Summary Table

Element	Matthew Prince’s Main Claims	Supporting Claims
Problem	China is a strategic threat, and direct tariffs won’t work	China’s export dominance (Fact) U.S. self-sufficiency (Fact) Economic leverage (Interpretation)
Desired Result	Force the world to choose: U.S. or China, isolating China geopolitically	Most nations will choose U.S. (Cause/Effect) Strategic containment is goal (Evaluation)
Solution	Impose universal tariffs to weaponize trade and force realignment	Trade as a Cold War tactic (Definition) Trump’s opacity is negotiation (Interpretation)

🧠 Final Thoughts

Matthew Prince is not advocating for this strategy, but analyzing what the strategy might be if one assumes the Trump administration has a coherent geopolitical plan.
His framework resembles a geoeconomic realism model: use the U.S.’s unique consumer power and resource independence to reshape global trade alliances.
While the piece is speculative, it reflects a plausible logic.

2. Ray Dalio

Ray Dalio, the billionaire hedge fund manager, is someone who has used his deep understanding of key causal relationships he has identified in business, the economy and society to become a very successful investor. In his April 7 2025 X essay Don’t Make the Mistake of Thinking That What’s Now Happening is Mostly about Tariffs, he suggests that the tariff issue needs to be looked at in a much wider context.

Summary: The world is undergoing a systemic breakdown across monetary, political, and geopolitical orders. These crises are part of a historical “Big Cycle” seen in past empire transitions. Focusing on surface issues like tariffs distracts from the deeper structural risks and needed reforms.

🧨 1. Analysis of the Problem

🔹 Main Claim of Action (Problem):

The world is undergoing a systemic breakdown across five major orders—monetary/economic, political, geopolitical, environmental, and technological—largely ignored by a focus on surface-level issues like tariffs.

🔹 Subsidiary Claims:

Fact:
- Excessive global debt and dependency on unsustainable financial relationships (e.g., U.S.–China trade/debt loop).
- Democracies are increasingly dysfunctional due to rising inequality.
- The U.S. is no longer a dominant global power in a unipolar world.
Cause and Effect:
- Excess debt + trade imbalances → breakdown of monetary order.
- Inequality + political inaction → domestic democratic failure.
- Rise of new powers + U.S. unilateralism → geopolitical conflict.
- Disruptive natural and technological forces → widespread instability.
Definition and Classification:
- Tariffs are not isolated events but symptoms of a larger historical pattern (“Overall Big Cycle”).
- Current conditions classified as a “classic breakdown” seen historically before major regime shifts.
Interpretation:
- Surface phenomena (e.g., tariffs) are distractions; deeper cycles and forces are what truly matter.
- Trump’s tariffs are interpreted as both consequences and accelerants of deeper structural crises.
Evaluation:
- Existing monetary/political/geopolitical systems are failing and unsustainable.
- The public’s focus on headlines instead of cycles is a critical mistake.

🔹 Assumptions:

History repeats in cycles: Dalio assumes that today’s global tensions are not unique but part of a recurring pattern of empire rise and decline.
Current systems are structurally unsound: The monetary, political, and economic orders are deeply imbalanced due to excessive debt, inequality, and geopolitical shifts.
Surface-level analysis is misleading: Public and media focus on tariffs and personalities obscures the true systemic drivers of instability.

🎯 2. Desired Results

🔹 Main Claim of Action (Goal):

Policymakers, investors, and citizens should refocus on understanding and addressing the systemic transformations driven by long-term cycles, rather than reacting to short-term events like tariffs.

🔹 Subsidiary Claims:

Evaluation:
- Policies should aim for systemic correction, not surface-level symptom management.
- Understanding historical cycles provides a valuable lens to predict and shape outcomes.
Cause and Effect:
- Better understanding of big cycles → more effective policy and personal strategy.
- Ignoring deeper drivers → greater risk of collapse (e.g., civil war, world war, depression).
Interpretation:
- The current moment is a turning point in a repeating historical pattern.
- Systemic transformation is inevitable; preparation can shape whether it is constructive or destructive.
Definition:
- The “Overall Big Cycle” is defined as a multi-phase historical pattern that transitions from one global order to the next through six stages (detailed in Dalio’s books).

🔹 Assumptions:

Systemic breakdown is inevitable without reform: If current trends continue unchecked, the world will face major upheavals—depressions, wars, or authoritarian shifts.
Understanding historical cycles improves foresight: Those who recognize the patterns can better prepare and adapt to what’s coming.
Trust, cooperation, and reform can avert collapse: While the situation is dangerous, Dalio believes decline is not destiny if managed wisely.

🛠️ 3. Proposed Solution

🔹 Main Claim of Action (Solution):

Stakeholders should study historical analogues, engage in constructive debate, and implement long-term, systemic policies to correct imbalances and prepare for the next world order.

🔹 Subsidiary Claims:

Action:
- Policymakers should:
  - Suspend debt payments to adversaries
  - Enact capital controls
  - Rebuild self-sufficiency
  - Study past crises to guide action
- Individuals should:
  - Educate themselves on historical cycles
  - Prepare for volatility
  - Engage in open dialogue with differing viewpoints
Fact:
- Historically, major transitions have included drastic actions (wars, currency resets, regime change).
- Technological and environmental shifts are now accelerating this transition.
Cause and Effect:
- Ignoring cycle dynamics → reactive policymaking and social unrest.
- Proactive cycle management → more resilient institutions and societies.
Evaluation:
- “Unimaginable” policy shifts (e.g., autocratic rise, capital controls) are becoming increasingly likely and should be seriously studied.
- Collaboration and intellectual humility are critical to finding viable solutions.
Interpretation:
- We are currently in an early-to-middle stage of a major global transition that could still be positively influenced if understood correctly.
Definition:
- Good policy is defined not by short-term outcomes but by long-term alignment with historical and systemic dynamics.

🔹 Assumptions:

Education and awareness shape outcomes: Societies that understand how the world really works—through cycles and systems—can make better decisions.
Reform is possible through policy and leadership: It’s not too late for the U.S. and others to reduce debt, inequality, and polarization through intentional reforms.
Global cooperation, though difficult, is preferable: Multilateralism and trust-building are necessary to avoid repeating the mistakes of past collapses.

🧩 Summary Table

Element	Ray Dalio’s Main Claims	Supporting Claims
Problem	Multi-system breakdown underway, misdiagnosed as a tariff issue	Over-indebtedness (Fact) Debt loops (Cause/Effect) Historical cycle (Definition, Interpretation)
Desired Results	Refocus attention on structural cycles and systemic reform	Shift from reactive to strategic thinking (Evaluation, Cause/Effect) Leverage history for insight (Interpretation)
Proposed Solution	Educate, prepare, reform via historical analogs and deep systems thinking	Policy proposals (Action) Accept systemic inevitability (Definition) Encourage open debate (Evaluation)

🧠 Key Themes

The Big Cycle of Rise and Decline
Dalio sees current global turmoil as part of a recurring historical pattern where empires rise and fall due to debt, inequality, and internal conflict. Understanding this “Big Cycle” is essential to interpreting today’s events.
Breakdown of Interconnected Systems
He argues that we’re witnessing a simultaneous unraveling of monetary, economic, political, geopolitical, and environmental systems. These breakdowns are interrelated and signal a deeper structural transformation.
Misdiagnosis of the Real Crisis
Dalio cautions against focusing too narrowly on issues like tariffs. He believes many are missing the bigger picture—misreading short-term developments while ignoring long-term systemic risks.

. Ben Hunt

Ben Hunt is the founder of Epsilon Theory, a newsletter and website that examines markets through the lenses of game theory and history. In his April 7 2025 article Crashing the Car of Pax Americana article, he warns about the negative consequences he foresees arising from Trump’s policy on tariffs.

Summary: The U.S. is abandoning Pax Americana’s coordination game and shifting to a destructive competition model. Tariffs and “America First” strategies break global trust and create a Prisoner’s Dilemma dynamic. Once trust is broken, a return to cooperation becomes nearly impossible—leading to lasting instability.

🧨 1. Analysis of the Problem

🔹 Main Claim of Action (Problem):

The shift from Pax Americana’s coordination-based global order to the Trump administration’s America First competition-based strategy represents a catastrophic and irreversible strategic mistake, leading the U.S. and world into a Prisoner’s Dilemma of mutual decline.

🔹 Subsidiary Claims:

Fact:
- The U.S. built Pax Americana post-WWII through global institutions, alliances, trade rules, and military dominance.
- Trump’s administration is enacting tariffs and policies that dismantle this system.
- The U.S. economy has benefited immensely from this global structure, lifting millions domestically and billions globally.
- Trump now has the personnel and intent to follow through with policies that shift the game structure itself.
Cause and Effect:
- Shifting from a coordination game (Pax Americana) to a competition game (America First) leads to systemic mistrust, breakdown of alliances, higher economic volatility, and decline in U.S. soft power.
- Once the game shifts, it cannot return to its former stable equilibrium—trust cannot be unbroken.
- A world of bilateral competition leads to slower growth, less efficient markets, and greater geopolitical risk.
Definition and Classification:
- Pax Americana = a coordination game with mutual benefits.
- America First = a competition game / Prisoner’s Dilemma with diminished collective outcomes.
- Tariffs and bilateralism are reclassified as destructive rejections of mutually beneficial norms, not tactical adjustments.
Interpretation:
- The Trump administration’s belief that America is being cheated under Pax Americana is a dangerous misreading of strategic reality.
- Pax Americana isn’t perfect, but it’s the best possible system in a multipolar world.
- Tariffs are not the real issue—they are symbolic of a deeper game-theoretical shift that changes everything.
Evaluation:
- The abandonment of Pax Americana is not a course correction but a break that permanently worsens the system for everyone.
- America First is not just short-sighted but strategically incoherent—offering no stable replacement.
- Attempts to revert back to the previous system will fail because trust, once broken, doesn’t regenerate.

🔹 Assumptions:

Pax Americana was a coordination game: Hunt assumes the post-WWII global order was built on trust, shared rules, and mutual benefit.
The U.S. is defecting from the coordination model: America is abandoning its leadership role and embracing zero-sum, bilateral thinking.
Trust is fragile and non-renewable: Once broken, the strategic trust that underpins international cooperation cannot easily be restored.

🎯 2. Desired Results

🔹 Main Claim of Action (Goal):

Preserve, reform, and adapt Pax Americana rather than destroy it; maintain a stable coordination game that delivers shared global benefits, including continued U.S. prosperity.

🔹 Subsidiary Claims:

Evaluation:
- Pax Americana, though flawed, is a “damn good deal” for the U.S. and the world.
- Reform (not rejection) is the rational path forward—prune inefficiencies, address inequities, but don’t abandon the system.
- The system’s value is greatest precisely because it aligns the interests of competing actors through shared rules.
Cause and Effect:
- Preserving coordination allows for trust-based negotiation, innovation, and economic growth.
- Abandoning it leads to fragmentation, mistrust, and strategic gridlock.
Interpretation:
- America’s leadership role is not just about power, but rule-setting—coordination has been America’s leverage.
- Trump’s framing of the world as a zero-sum game ignores this historic advantage.
Definition:
- “Better results” = sustainable prosperity through rules-based global cooperation, not short-term dominance through defection.

🔹 Assumptions:

Shifting to a competition game has systemic consequences: Global trade and diplomacy will enter a Prisoner’s Dilemma dynamic, leading to suboptimal outcomes for all.
Most nations rely on U.S. trust more than coercion: The long-term effectiveness of U.S. influence rests more on stability and norms than on brute force or leverage.
Reversion is nearly impossible: Once the coordination game breaks, there is no clear path back to the old equilibrium.

🛠️ 3. Proposed Solution

Main Claim of Action (Solution):

Reject the game-theoretic shift to competitive bilateralism. Recommit to multilateral rules, shared prosperity, and Pax Americana—while reforming its imbalances and removing parasitic actors.

🔹 Subsidiary Claims:

Action:
- Stop framing global affairs as a zero-sum game.
- Reform Pax Americana by:
  - Rooting out domestic inefficiencies and corruption.
  - Addressing free-rider problems in alliances.
  - Rebalancing benefits to better serve U.S. citizens without destroying the system itself.
- Shift from reactive crisis framing to long-term strategic coordination.
Fact:
- Once trust is lost in global coordination, the system enters a new and lower “sticking point.”
- The world (esp. China, Europe) will not accept being dominated; mutual defection will prevail.
Cause and Effect:
- Efforts to dominate via defection = accelerated decline in U.S. leadership, trust, and economic leverage.
- Efforts to reform from within = possible restoration of equilibrium and long-term influence.
Evaluation:
- Coordination enables better outcomes and preserves American strength.
- Competition breeds chaos and ultimately weakens even the strongest player.
Interpretation:
- We are entering a historical inflection point (“the Great Ravine”) where the structure of global cooperation will either adapt or collapse.
Definition:
- Real strength lies in leadership through coordination, not domination through competition.

🔹 Assumptions:

Preserving trust is more important than short-term advantage: Strategic cooperation yields better outcomes than transactional defection.
Reform must come from within the existing structure: Pax Americana should be reformed, not discarded.
Narratives shape reality: Public understanding of trust dynamics can influence whether coordination is maintained or lost.

🧩 Summary Table

Element	Ben Hunt’s Main Claims	Supporting Claims
Problem	U.S. is dismantling Pax Americana and replacing it with zero-sum, unstable competitive policy.	Shift from coordination to competition (Interpretation) Loss of trust = systemic decline (Cause/Effect)
Desired Results	Reform and preserve Pax Americana; recommit to cooperative rules-based order.	Pax Americana as “damn good deal” (Evaluation) True leadership = rules, not brute force (Definition)
Proposed Solution	Reject zero-sum thinking, maintain global coordination, reform from within.	End bilateralism (Action) Restore trust and shared benefit (Cause/Effect, Evaluation)

🧠 Key Themes

Game Theory as Analytic Frame:
Hunt uses the Stag Hunt and Prisoner’s Dilemma to frame the shift from cooperation (Pax Americana) to unilateral competition (America First).
Complexity and Contradiction:
Hunt insists on holding contradictory truths simultaneously (e.g., Pax Americana is flawed and invaluable). His model embraces moral and political complexity, rejecting partisan purity.
Realism over Idealism:
The proposed solution isn’t a return to a golden past, but an effort to salvage the best feasible parts of a fading order before we descend further.

Conclusion

I hope that reading the analyses of the three arguments has shown you how powerful using the argument claim hexagon model can be.

In particular, I think that using a standard framework makes it much easier to compare different arguments and to understand how they differ in what they focus on and the different internal dynamics driving each argument.

However the analysis doesn’t necessarily stop here. One can use additional questions to explore the Problem, Desired Results and Solution components in even more detail.