Opinion | Why Trump’s Tariff Math Is a Joke - The New York Times


This opinion piece critiques the Trump administration's tariff calculations, arguing that the methodology is flawed and the resulting tariffs are far too high.
AI Summary available — skim the key points instantly. Show AI Generated Summary
Show AI Generated Summary
We located an Open Access version of this article, legally shared by the author or publisher. Open It

My first question, when the White House unveiled its tariff regime, was: How on earth did it calculate such huge rates? Reciprocal tariffs, after all, are supposed to treat other countries the way they treat us, and foreign tariffs on American goods are nowhere near these levels.

The next day it got personal. The Office of the U.S. Trade Representative released its methodology and cited an academic paper produced by four economists, including me, seemingly in support of its numbers. But it got it wrong. Very wrong. I disagree fundamentally with the government’s trade policy and approach. But even taking it at face value, our findings suggest the calculated tariffs should be dramatically smaller — perhaps one-fourth as large.

Let’s start with the biggest mistake. The office said it calculated its reciprocal tariffs at a level that would theoretically eliminate trade deficits with “each of our trading partners,” one by one. Is that a reasonable goal?

It is not. Trade imbalances between two countries can emerge for many reasons that have nothing to do with protectionism. Americans spend more on clothing made in Sri Lanka than Sri Lankans spend on American pharmaceuticals and gas turbines. So what? That pattern reflects differences in natural resources, comparative advantage and development levels. The deficit numbers don’t suggest, let alone prove, unfair competition.

There are some reasonable arguments in favor of reducing the overall trade deficit, such as to reduce risks from our debt. But these arguments don’t apply country by country. The Nobel laureate Robert Solow explained why when he quipped, “I have a chronic deficit with my barber, who doesn’t buy a darned thing from me.” Mr. Solow also surely ran a chronic surplus with his students, and these imbalances reveal nothing about trade barriers in hair care or higher education, nor would they speak to his financial health.

For the sake of argument, let’s grant President Trump his goal of eliminating all trade deficits, no matter how destructive that would be. Could these reciprocal tariffs succeed?

We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.

Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.

Thank you for your patience while we verify access.

Already a subscriber? Log in.

Want all of The Times? Subscribe.

🧠 Pro Tip

Skip the extension — just come straight here.

We’ve built a fast, permanent tool you can bookmark and use anytime.

Go To Paywall Unblock Tool
Sign up for a free account and get the following:
  • Save articles and sync them across your devices
  • Get a digest of the latest premium articles in your inbox twice a week, personalized to you (Coming soon).
  • Get access to our AI features

  • Save articles to reading lists
    and access them on any device
    If you found this app useful,
    Please consider supporting us.
    Thank you!

    Save articles to reading lists
    and access them on any device
    If you found this app useful,
    Please consider supporting us.
    Thank you!