elpais.com
Misapplication of Trade Deficit Research Justifies Trump's Harmful Tariffs
A research paper suggesting that a country with a trade deficit could benefit from tariffs was cited by the Trump administration to justify its trade policies; however, the paper's authors dispute this application, asserting that Trump's tariffs are excessive and harmful.
- What are the potential long-term economic impacts of the Trump administration's trade policies, considering the limitations and misapplications of academic models like the one by Pujolas and Rossbach?
- The misuse of Pujolas's research highlights the risk of policymakers misinterpreting academic models. Trump's excessive tariffs, exceeding what the model suggests as optimal, risk severe economic consequences, demonstrating a critical disconnect between economic theory and policy implementation. This misapplication could trigger further trade disputes and worsen global economic conditions.
- How does the application of Pujolas and Rossbach's research on trade deficits differ from the actual implementation of tariffs by the Trump administration, and what are the immediate economic consequences?
- The US government cited a research paper by Pau S. Pujolas and Jack Rossbach to justify its tariffs, concluding that in a trade war, the country with a trade deficit benefits. However, Pujolas refutes this application, stating that the model doesn't support Trump's actions and that the tariffs are causing a recession.
- What specific factors in Pujolas and Rossbach's model determine whether imposing tariffs benefits a country with a trade deficit, and how do these factors compare with the current US-China trade situation?
- Pujolas's research, using a 2014 dataset and supercomputer modeling, indicates that imposing tariffs can benefit a country with a large enough trade deficit. However, the model's application to the current situation is flawed; Trump's tariffs are not "optimal" and harm the US economy, extending beyond China to the EU.
Cognitive Concepts
Framing Bias
The framing of the article emphasizes the limitations of Trump's tariff calculations in relation to the cited research. The headline (if there were one) likely highlights the discrepancy between the academic findings and the administration's actions, potentially casting doubt on the administration's economic policy decisions. The introduction of the article directly points out this discrepancy, positioning the reader to be critical of the government's actions from the beginning.
Language Bias
The language used is largely neutral, although words such as "torticero" (crooked) and "animalada" (outrage) carry a negative connotation when describing the administration's actions. These words show the author's opinion. More neutral alternatives could include "unconventional" or "unorthodox" instead of "torticero", and "extreme" or "severe" instead of "animalada".
Bias by Omission
The article omits discussion of potential negative consequences of Trump's tariffs beyond the immediate impact on trade balances. It doesn't consider broader economic effects like inflation, reduced consumer choice, or retaliatory measures from other countries. This omission limits the reader's ability to fully assess the potential downsides of the tariffs.
False Dichotomy
The article presents a simplified view of the trade war, focusing primarily on the immediate effects of tariffs on trade balances. It doesn't fully explore the multifaceted nature of global trade, including various economic, political, and social factors influencing the outcome of such conflicts. The suggestion that only two outcomes are possible, with one party clearly winning and the other losing, oversimplifies a complex reality.
Sustainable Development Goals
The article highlights how the US government's trade war policies, based on a misinterpretation of economic research, are likely to worsen economic inequality both domestically and internationally. The policies disproportionately impact vulnerable populations and exacerbate existing economic disparities. The misuse of economic models to justify protectionist measures undermines efforts to promote fair and equitable trade practices, which are essential for reducing inequality.