nytimes.com
Trump's New Tariffs: A Formula with Arbitrary Choices and Inconsistent Impacts
President Trump's new tariffs, calculated using a formula based on 2024 goods trade deficits, range from 10 percent to over 50 percent depending on the country; the formula's arbitrary choices and exclusion of services create inconsistencies and potential unfairness.
- How does the exclusion of services and the use of a single-year trade deficit data affect the fairness and accuracy of the tariff calculations?
- The formula's reliance on 2024 data and the exclusion of services creates inconsistencies. For example, the US had a trade surplus with Saudi Arabia in 2023 but a deficit in 2024, resulting in different tariff implications. Similarly, ignoring services significantly alters the tariff rates for countries like the European Union and Switzerland.
- What are the potential long-term consequences of using this tariff formula, and what adjustments could be made to improve its fairness and accuracy?
- The arbitrary choices in the formula, such as dividing the result by two and the use of canceling variables, introduce significant uncertainty and potential for unfairness. Future adjustments to the formula are needed to account for year-to-year variations in trade balances and the inclusion of services to create a more equitable system. The 10 percent minimum tariff further obscures the actual trade deficit impact.
- What are the immediate impacts of President Trump's new tariff formula on various countries, and how do the formula's arbitrary choices affect these impacts?
- President Trump's new tariffs, based on a formula using 2024 trade deficits, range from 10 percent to potentially much higher rates depending on various choices within the formula. The formula only considers goods, not services, significantly impacting countries like Bermuda (10 percent tariff, but 37 percent if services were included). This approach ignores the complexities of trade balances, leading to potentially unfair outcomes.
Cognitive Concepts
Framing Bias
The article frames the Trump administration's tariff formula as arbitrary and flawed, highlighting its inconsistencies and potential for unfair outcomes. The use of phrases such as "blunt," "arbitrary choices," and "hidden choices" contributes to this negative framing. The focus on the formula's shortcomings and the potential for vastly different results under alternative choices shapes the reader's perception of the tariffs as unfair and poorly conceived.
Language Bias
The language used is largely neutral, but there are instances of potentially loaded terms. For example, describing the formula as "blunt" and choices as "arbitrary" conveys a negative judgment. More neutral alternatives could be used, such as "straightforward" and "unconventional". The repeated emphasis on the formula's flaws contributes to a negative tone.
Bias by Omission
The analysis omits discussion of the potential economic consequences of the tariffs on various countries and the global economy. It also doesn't explore the political ramifications of these tariffs on international relations. The impact on specific industries within the affected countries is not addressed.
False Dichotomy
The article presents a false dichotomy by implying that the only choices are using the current formula or drastically altering it. It doesn't consider alternative formulas or intermediate solutions that might mitigate some of the problems with the current approach. The framing also implies that the only options are 'kind' (dividing by two) or 'unkind' (not dividing or dividing by a different number), oversimplifying the ethical considerations.
Sustainable Development Goals
The tariffs disproportionately affect countries with varying economic strengths, potentially exacerbating existing inequalities. The arbitrary nature of the formula and the inclusion of a minimum tariff further contribute to this uneven impact. Countries with smaller economies may struggle to absorb the costs, while larger economies may have more resources to adapt.