For those that do support the tarrifs, how do you think they should be calculated? The unga bunga math used to calculate the numbers being presented doesn't seem to be an approach that inspires confidence that the people behind this have any idea what they are doing.

More so I don't think I've ever read a headline from a well established news org calling a head of state an idiot in my lifetime.


Trump’s ‘idiotic’ and flawed tariff calculations stun economists

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/apr/03/trumps-idiotic-and-flawed-tariff-calculations-stun-economists

Waving a big chart as a prop in the White House Rose Garden, Donald Trump suggested his new tariff plan was simple: “Reciprocal – that means they do it to us, and we do it to them. Very simple. Can’t get simpler than that.”

Perhaps a bit too simple. The method used to calculate the most important numbers in international trade, politics and economics has left some of the world’s leading experts shocked.

For each country, the White House looked up its trade in goods deficit for 2024, then divided that by the total value of imports. Trump, to be “kind”, said he would, however, offer a discount, so halved that figure. The calculation was even distilled into a formula.

For example, take the figures for China:

Goods trade deficit: $291.9bn

Total goods imports: $438.9bn

Those figures divided = 0.67, or 67%

And halved = 34%

For countries without a large deficit, the White House applied a 10% baseline, ensuring tariffs would be applied regardless. This was the case for the UK, which the US Census Bureau reckons had an almost-$12bn surplus in 2024.

“[It is] quite an extraordinary calculation after months of work behind the scenes,” said Jim Reid, the global head of macro research at Deutsche Bank. “[It] didn’t add much confidence on there being an in-depth strategic implementation plan.”

Let me know when Indians figure out the math on DWV systems, they're about 2400 years behind

This tells the world, its not about "unfair" trade deficit / surplus because you left most countries not knowing how or what number they should aim for even if they wanted to come to some type of agreement. How do all those countries that got a 10% slap who buy more from the USA than they sell to the USA react? What are they supposed to do?

This is purley, lets plunge the world into total economic chaos for my ego. That's not I don't like the guy, I just don't have another conclusion.

This post was edited by SBD on Apr 4 2025 08:49am

Pelosi did this math in 1996, at least with US v China MFN Tarrifs rates. To bad we didn't course correct then


The AI data center responses to Tarrifs speculation prompts has yielded nothing conclusive.

The experts predictions extrapolated from 1930s era are kind of useless too, US was fledgling county back then, not at all a global power but sticking its head out of isolationism.

Probably a thousand variable differential equations could maybe come close.

It is an undeniable fact that US is running significant trade deficit to some its largest trading partners.

However labelling the calculation results as "reciprocal" is misleading to the public.
On top of that, halving and presenting it as "discounted" tariff as if it is a generous concession isn't right.

Agreed on trade deficit but do you think a trade deficit is necessarily bad?

That is the part I have not understood from day 1 and why I viewed tariffs as a tool to get non-economic things done, not balance trade deficits.

Countries vary in size massively, its only natural that some countries will buy more from other than they sell to it. The Canadian crude example is a great example. Canada has no use for all that oil, the USA has 10X the population and uses that energy, I very much expect a country with 10x a population and a significantly bigger economy to buy more than we ever possibly could.

Now i'm not an economist, but it seems pretty logical to me that countries all over the world would be in different balances with each other.

This post was edited by SBD on Apr 4 2025 10:02am

the height of US dominance over the world came at a time where we had:

1. top 5 land mass
2. top 5 population
3. top #1 overall exports

we've still got all of the land, less population, and less exports. and we're teetering on losing global dominance. while i dont agree with the tariff policies, i cant pretend that the US could somehow retain global dominance by just being an importer economy and exporting nothing but guns. either we maintain enough activity in the global economy as a producer/buyer/seller or we will lose the USD as world reserve currency and simply become less important in all things but war.

The rule is simply: if you are importing USA goods, Americans do stuff for you, you are good and we like you, you will pay minimal tax.
Hovewer if you export your goods into USA, you are not good, we dont like you. you steal American jobs, we put a big tax on you, so it doesnt make sense to bring your goods into USA, you can no longer steal jobs from USA.