- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: The tariffs imposed on US from Trump spreadsheet are literally just the trade ratio
Posted on 4/3/25 at 8:31 am to sgallo3
Posted on 4/3/25 at 8:31 am to sgallo3
You do realize this is not all about tariffs don’t you? There are other barriers to entry to a market than tariffs and more than likely this is taken into account in the tariff equation. They have actually said as much.
0
Posted on 4/3/25 at 8:35 am to cajuntiger1010
quote:
No it’s not. It’s a chart showing our new tariff compared to the trade ratio. Not sure what is confusing for you
Have you seen their formula for coming up with the "adjusted" tariffs?
Or are you just taking their word for it? Lol.
Posted on 4/3/25 at 8:40 am to _Hurricane_
Trump has been studying this for at least the past 30 years and his very talented economists also think it’s genius
Posted on 4/3/25 at 8:41 am to atlgamecockman
Thanks for posting that link to the US Trade representatives page, it was interesting to read. Essentially you are correct, the calculation is intended to drive the trade deficit between countries to zero. In the long term this does not seem bad……there will definitely be short term pain.
Other interesting information on that page:
“US consumer demand has been siphoned out of the US economy into the global economy, leading to the closure of 90,000 American factories since 1997, and a decline in our manufacturing workforce of more than 6.6 million jobs…”
If more manufacturing jobs were returned to the USA wouldn’t that be a positive?
Other interesting information on that page:
“US consumer demand has been siphoned out of the US economy into the global economy, leading to the closure of 90,000 American factories since 1997, and a decline in our manufacturing workforce of more than 6.6 million jobs…”
If more manufacturing jobs were returned to the USA wouldn’t that be a positive?
Posted on 4/3/25 at 8:42 am to FLTech
quote:
Trump has been studying this for at least the past 30 years and his very talented economists also think it’s genius
You’d think they could label the charts appropriately if they were so meticulously studying this….
Posted on 4/3/25 at 8:52 am to atlgamecockman
quote:
“The numbers [for tariffs by country] have been calculated by the Council of Economic Advisers … based on the concept that the trade deficit that we have with any given country is the sum of all trade practices, the sum of all cheating,” a White House official said, calling it “the most fair thing in the world.”
They should have labelled it as "Trade Deficit" then, this just obfuscates it, and gives ammo to the detractors.
And maybe that makes sense, I don't know. They countries with the highest trade deficit need the most incentive to produce in USA? Here's the top 10 imports from Cambodia. Making these in the US I'm sure will raise prices, that might be good overall, with more US jobs? I dunno.
LINK
quote:
Articles of apparel, knit or crocheted $2.79B 2024
Articles of leather, animal gut, harness, travel good $2.04B 2024
Electrical, electronic equipment $1.76B 2024
Furniture, lighting signs, prefabricated buildings $1.45B 2024
Articles of apparel, not knit or crocheted $1.21B 2024
Footwear, gaiters and the like, $933.86M 2024
Rubbers $780.38M 2024
Plastics $479.13M 2024
Wood and articles of wood, wood charcoal $405.03M 2024
Toys, games, sports requisites $378.13M 2024
Posted on 4/3/25 at 8:55 am to MidWestGuy
The “detractors” say it will make goods more expensive to buy.
Posted on 4/3/25 at 8:59 am to lowhound
quote:
The reason they're making all of those cheap goods and selling them here is because there were no tariffs on them to begin with. Cheap goods from erd world countries closed all of the factories here because we couldn't compete with their sweat shops. Isn't that the goal? Make America Great by bringing back manufacturing and jobs to the US? Some of y'all are idiots. Who cares if Cambodia puts a tariff on our goods
Yes sir, thats the goal. Trumps explained his ideas and plans endlessly throughout his campaign and that is what we the people voted for. Trump is now delivering. If folks dont like it, I don't know what to tell ya. Shut your pie holes and wait until the next presidential election and try harder! It sucks to be a loser!
Posted on 4/3/25 at 9:18 am to AGGIES
quote:
The “detractors” say it will make goods more expensive to buy.
And I'm sure they are correct. These countries are not going to, and are not able to change their trade deficit with the US in just a few days. Few of us are going to pay near double for a shirt from Cambodia. And buying from some other country won't be much cheaper, and we can't set up US factories that quickly. From the White House:
quote:
Using his IEEPA authority, President Trump will impose a 10% tariff on all countries. This will take effect April 5, 2025 at 12:01 a.m. EDT.
President Trump will impose an individualized reciprocal higher tariff on the countries with which the United States has the largest trade deficits. All other countries will continue to be subject to the original 10% tariff baseline. This will take effect April 9, 2025 at 12:01 a.m. EDT.
These tariffs will remain in effect until such a time as President Trump determines that the threat posed by the trade deficit and underlying nonreciprocal treatment is satisfied, resolved, or mitigated..
If this was just a negotiation tool, why not say they go into effect in 3 months, and let each country submit a plan for US investment and/or more US imports?
I'm a Trump fan, but this seems messed up. Can he prove me wrong? I sure hope so!
This post was edited on 4/3/25 at 9:19 am
Posted on 4/3/25 at 9:21 am to SloaneRanger
quote:
Reciprocal tariffs are one thing. You can’t achieve equal trading levels.
Trump doesn’t want equal trading. He just wants to stop countries with slave labor from flooding the American market with cheap goods. They basically took the trade imbalance number and then cut it by 50%. So it’s not about equal trade but it is about giving American manufacturing a chance to be competitive.
Posted on 4/3/25 at 9:23 am to Drizzt
wheres the cheap goods. a hoodie from dicks/nike costs 80$
This post was edited on 4/3/25 at 9:23 am
Posted on 4/3/25 at 9:25 am to BuckyCheese
quote:
So it would seem the Trump admin lied about the calculation as it is clearly labeled "Tariffs charged to the US including currency manipulation and trade barriers."?
well, here is their explanation:
LINK
quote:
While individually computing the trade deficit effects of tens of thousands of tariff, regulatory, tax and other policies in each country is complex, if not impossible, their combined effects can be proxied by computing the tariff level consistent with driving bilateral trade deficits to zero. If trade deficits are persistent because of tariff and non-tariff policies and fundamentals, then the tariff rate consistent with offsetting these policies and fundamentals is reciprocal and fair.
So they are using the trade deficit as a proxy for that. Geez, why not just call it trade deficit then?
Posted on 4/3/25 at 9:30 am to MidWestGuy
quote:
well, here is their explanation:
LINK
It gets worse when you read their formula.
quote:
To calculate reciprocal tariffs, import and export data from the U.S. Census Bureau for 2024. Parameter values for e and f were selected. The price elasticity of import demand, e, was set at 4.
Recent evidence suggests the elasticity is near 2 in the long run (Boehm et al., 2023), but estimates of the elasticity vary. To be conservative, studies that find higher elasticities near 3-4 (e.g., Broda and Weinstein 2006; Simonovska and Waugh 2014; Soderbery 2018) were drawn on. The elasticity of import prices with respect to tariffs, f, is 0.25.
Hmmm, so the numerator is (exports-imports), the denominator is their elasticity constants multiplied by imports...but wait, their constants are 4 and 1/4. What happens when you multiply a number by its reciprocal
Posted on 4/3/25 at 9:52 am to Drizzt
quote:
Trump doesn’t want equal trading. He just wants to stop countries with slave labor from flooding the American market with cheap goods. They basically took the trade imbalance number and then cut it by 50%. So it’s not about equal trade but it is about giving American manufacturing a chance to be competitive.
Why can't he just call on patriots to leave the cheap foreign goods on the shelves and buy American?
Feels like a fatty on the race track putting weights in his competitor's socks in order to remain competitive. All you get is a terrible finish time.
Posted on 4/3/25 at 10:07 am to ATrillionaire
quote:
Feels like a fatty on the race track putting weights in his competitor's socks in order to remain competitive. All you get is a terrible finish time.
I don’t think this analogy is correct. Are you saying American workers make “terrible” products? The “race” shouldn’t be only to get as much shite as cheap as possible. Pure consumerism shouldn’t be our guiding principle for all economic decisions. It’s vapid.
The end game is to make products more expensive so that American workers can be competitive against Asian slave labor. The goal is not to make things excessively expensive. Right now you have 30 cheap tshirts from Walmart in your closet and your neighbor doesn’t have a steady manufacturing job. Would you pay more and only own 15 tshirts and you actually have manufacturing jobs in your town? I would because at the end of the day I still won’t wear half those tshirts regularly. We have way too much cheap shite anyway. Ask anyone who had a relative die and they had to clean out their home. Even our poorest people have a ton of cheap clutter in their homes.
This post was edited on 4/3/25 at 10:12 am
Posted on 4/3/25 at 10:10 am to Drizzt
quote:
I don’t think this analogy is correct. Are you saying American workers make “terrible” products?
No I'm not. Replace "terrible" with "relatively expensive"
quote:
Right now you have 30 cheap tshirts from Walmart in your closet and your neighbor doesn’t have a steady manufacturing job. Would you pay more and only own 15 tshirts and you actually have manufacturing jobs in your town?
No.
This post was edited on 4/3/25 at 10:12 am
Posted on 4/3/25 at 10:22 am to Powerman
quote:
This has a "throwing darts" feel to it if I've ever seen such a thing
The entire episode is an updated version of the Four Seasons Total Landscaping debacle.
Only this time it's the entire global economy getting screwed up instead of a post-election bitch fest.
Posted on 4/3/25 at 10:44 am to FlyDownTheField83
quote:
In the long term this does not seem bad
It's just insanely unrealistic is the thing. Trade deficits are just natural things that occur through commerce. They aren't good or bad inherently they just are... we aren't going to magically start making all our own t shirts and say frick cambodia.
So value in the market was lost for nothing but trump's ego
Posted on 4/3/25 at 11:02 am to Ingeniero
quote:
Hmmm, so the numerator is (exports-imports), the denominator is their elasticity constants multiplied by imports...but wait, their constants are 4 and 1/4. What happens when you multiply a number by its reciprocal
Jokes on you, you need a refresh on your math skills. The m(sub i) is in the numerator and denominator, but it doesn't just cancel out because it is not a separate factor in the numerator.
Let's use a simple example:, replace m(sub i) with '2' in the the numerator and denominator, as in the above equation:
(4 - 2) / (10 * 2) simplifies to 2/20 = 1/10 = 0.1 but the '2' does not cancel, because:
(4) / (10) = 0.4
or, double the value of m(sub i), and it shouldn't matter if it cancels:
(4 - 4) / (10 * 4) = 0/40 = 0.
Back to school for you (and your up-voter)!
This post was edited on 4/3/25 at 11:05 am
Posted on 4/3/25 at 11:06 am to MidWestGuy
quote:
Jokes on you, you need a refresh on your math skills. The m(sub i) is in the numerator and denominator, but it doesn't just cancel out because it is not a separate factor in the numerator.
You're misunderstanding me. I'm not talking about the numerator and denominator both having m_i. I'm saying that the constants they used in the denominator, the Greek letters epsilon and phi, are reciprocals of each other. They "calculated" the "tariffs" by taking the ratio of deficit to imports and claimed they adjusted by elasticity constants but those constants multiply to equal 1.
Page 5 of 8
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News