english.elpais.com
Misuse of Economic Research in Justifying Trump's Tariffs
Researchers Pau S. Pujolas and Jack Rossbach's study on trade wars, cited by the White House to justify President Trump's tariffs, is being misinterpreted; Pujolas argues the model's parameters and the actual tariffs imposed differ significantly, potentially causing a global recession.
- How does the model used in the research account for the trade deficit between countries and its potential influence on the outcome of a trade war?
- Pujolas's research, using a supercomputer model and 2014 data, indicates that optimal tariffs could benefit a nation with a large trade deficit. The model suggests that, under specific conditions, tariffs could outweigh potential economic damage. However, the White House's application of this research differs significantly, as it applied tariffs beyond what Pujolas's model suggests as optimal.
- What are the immediate economic consequences of the significant discrepancies between the model presented in Pujolas and Rossbach's research and the tariffs imposed by the Trump administration?
- An article co-authored by Pau S. Pujolas and Jack Rossbach, suggesting that in trade wars, nations with trade deficits might benefit from imposing tariffs, was cited by the White House to justify President Trump's tariff policies. However, Pujolas refutes the White House's application of his research, stating that the model's parameters and the actual tariffs imposed differ significantly, potentially leading to economic recession. The White House cited the research to support its tariffs despite the mismatch in application.
- What are the potential long-term implications of using simplified economic models, such as the one referenced, to justify broad-sweeping economic policies, and how can this be avoided in the future?
- The misuse of Pujolas's research highlights the dangers of selectively using academic work to justify political decisions. The substantial discrepancies between the model's parameters and the actual tariffs imposed suggest that the economic consequences of President Trump's policies could be far more severe than initially predicted. The global economic impact of such a broad tariff increase could potentially lead to substantial economic harm.
Cognitive Concepts
Framing Bias
The framing emphasizes the researcher's surprise and frustration at the misuse of his work. This narrative choice positions the reader to sympathize with the researcher and view the Trump administration's actions as misguided. The headline (if there was one) likely would have reinforced this perspective.
Language Bias
The language used is generally neutral, although terms like "outrageous" and "erratic leader" reveal a degree of the researcher's subjective opinion. However, the article clearly attributes these opinions to Pujolas. The overall tone remains fairly objective, presenting both the researcher's view and the White House's position.
Bias by Omission
The analysis focuses heavily on the researcher's perspective and the misuse of his research by the Trump administration. Missing is a broader discussion of the economic factors influencing the trade war, beyond the trade deficit, and the potential justifications the White House might have for their actions, even if flawed. The article omits discussion of other economic models and perspectives on optimal tariffs.
False Dichotomy
The article presents a false dichotomy by suggesting the trade war is solely a matter of optimal tariffs versus the current, clearly suboptimal tariffs imposed by Trump. It overlooks the complex interplay of political, social, and economic factors driving the trade war, reducing it to a simplistic economic model.
Sustainable Development Goals
The article highlights how the misapplication of economic research by the Trump administration, particularly regarding tariffs, negatively impacts economic outcomes and exacerbates inequality. The imposition of non-optimal tariffs leads to losses for all involved, disproportionately affecting those in exporting countries and potentially widening the gap between rich and poor nations. The economic recession caused by these actions further contributes to inequality.