A superior economist was surprised to learn that the Trump administration used its investigation to justify the tariffs that ITT mean, insisting that the White House was put on its “very bad” formula and greatly calculated the encumbrances for each country.
Brent Neiman, professor of Economics at the University of Chicago, said in a rate regime of the president of the New York Times opinion, that Trump should have been approximately four times less if his study was followed correctly.
The economic expert, who co -written the investigation with three other renowned economists, said that his first question when Trump announced his tariff rates was: “How demons calculated such large rates?”
“The next day you get personnel. The Office of the Commerce Representative launched its methodology and cited an academic article produced by four economists, including, apparently in support of its numbers,” was written.
“But he was wrong. Very bad,” he said.
“I do not agree fundamentally with the government’s policy and approach. But taking it to the letter, our findings suggest that calculated tariffs should be dramatically smaller, perhaps such a large room.”
Neiman, who served as a treasure officer, felt the Biden administration suggested that Trump’s team incorrectly connected to a 25% rate in the formula to create the encumbrances.
“Where does 25%come from? Is it related to our work? I don’t know,” was written.
“On the other hand, the trade office had used a value closer to the number of 95 percent of our work, as I think should do, calculated tariffs would have legs up to a quarter of what they are.”
The professor said that the “greatest error” was to take advantage of reciprocal tariffs to try to eliminate commercial deficits with some of the main commercial partners of the United States.
“The office said it calculated its reciprocal tariffs at a level that would theoretically eliminate commercial deficits with” each of our business partners, “one by one. Is that a reasonable objective?” Hey wrote.
“It is not. Commercial imbalances between two countries can arise for many reasons that have nothing to do with protectionism. Americans spend more on clothes made in Sri Lanka than srikans spend in US potatoes and the comparative advantage of Céspedes and development levels.”
“The deficit numbers do not suggest, much less try, an unfair competition,” he added.
Neiman’s reaction occurs after Trump announced an initial 10% tariff over all imports to the USA last week, as well as the highest tasks in some of the largest commercial partners in the country, with the premium Italian coffee and Japanese whiskey to sportswear made in Asia.
Trump justified Handley taxes by arguing that “reciprocal” tariffs were an answer to the duties and other non -tariff barriers that were put on US assets.
He has also insisted that tariffs would increase manufacturing work at home.
