Does Anyone Understand the Math Behind the Trump Tariff Formula?

I suppose we can just let every Country on the Planet to keep charging the US exorbitant tariffs to allow our products to be sold in their Country while their goods are
getting, in comparison, a free ride here. Originally Posted by Jacky S

That's fiction that's been pushed on you by Peter Navarro and others Jacky.

See this,

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...by_tariff_rate

The best column to look at is probably the first, the World Bank's "tarriff rate, applied, weighted mean, all products." You can use the arrows to sort in ascending or descending order. The United States weighed in at 1.47%, before Trump's second presidency. The only developed countries that were higher were Iceland (1.51%), Japan (1.84%), Canada (2.35%), Israel (2.88%), Norway (3.00%), and, if you consider it developed, Uruguay (5.25%). The figure for China was 2.31%.

Fast forward to present. According to the Budget Lab at Yale, the overall average effective tariff rate in the USA is now 28%! If you take into account consumption shifts, their estimated average tariff would be 18%. What that means is that, for example, when American ****s cut back on their profligate consumption so they just own 2 dolls instead of 30, as suggested by the President, our tariff rate will go back to "just" 18%.

https://budgetlab.yale.edu/research/...-april-15-2025

Now please go back to the World Bank data in the Wiki table. The 28% means we probably now have the highest average tariff rate in the world! If we go back to 18%, then we'd still be highest in the world except for two British Overseas Territories, the Cayman Islands and Bermuda, two income tax havens that export close to "0".

I'm trying to wrap my brain around the ideas typically spouted in this Forum. A Pussy-centered Website whose Members support Trump 3-1, yet understand his Tariff scheme is economic hogwash. Originally Posted by Capital

Stinkin' Madagascans! They took our jobs!

Great post



Not true about the composition of the Board. Please refer to the recent "GolferGuy/IRA/Trump Supporter" poll. A majority of Board Members now dislike Trump. What a change from a few years ago!

However otherwise yes, you're right. Many of us are bipolar. I for one had extreme love for our current president when he lowered the corporate income tax rate, pushed the mRNA COVID vaccines through the FDA, and tried to bring peace to Ukraine. I experienced extreme hatred when he tried to steal an election and imposed the irrational tariffs that are the subject of this thread.

Yes Capital, some of us think and decide for ourselves, instead of mindlessly following party leaders, media pundits, and social media political influencers. Originally Posted by Tiny

Cap, it was worse before I started shit up here. Especially in this particular forum.

Don't try to understand anything here. This shit is just for fun. Even the dumb asses who take this site serious to the point where you get reported to the Feds about your post.

Even our resident E-conomic experts, including Chiquito, know that the idiot in the Whitehouse relies on the brain dead to not understand.

The experts here agree the hogwash is real. And still voted for him.

Idiots following an idiot. Even the so-called elite of monetary theory here and abroad. Idiots. Their brains have been kidnapped.

I can't find a better clip. I hate these videos that record the TV.

That's fiction that's been pushed on you by Peter Navarro and others Jacky.

See this,

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...by_tariff_rate

The best column to look at is probably the first, the World Bank's "tarriff rate, applied, weighted mean, all products." You can use the tariff keys to sort in ascending or descending order. The United States weighed in at 1.47%, before Trump's second presidency. The only developed countries that were higher were Iceland (1.51%), Japan (1.84%), Canada (2.35%), and Norway (3.00%). The figure for China is 2.31%.

Fast forward to present. According to the Budget Lab at Yale, the overall average effective tariff rate in the USA is now 28%! If you take into account consumption shifts, their estimated average tariff is 18%. What that means is that, for example, when American ****s cut back on their profligate consumption so they just own 2 dolls instead of 30, our tariff rate will go back to "just" 18%.

https://budgetlab.yale.edu/research/...-april-15-2025

Now please go back to the World Bank data in the Wiki table. The 28% means we probably now have the highest average tariff rate in the world! If we go back to 18%, then we'd still be highest in the world except for two British Overseas Territories, the Cayman Islands and Bermuda, two tax havens that export close to "0". Originally Posted by Tiny

See what I mean Cap and Chiquis? Idiots!

See what I mean Cap and Chiquis? Idiots! Originally Posted by eccieuser9500

Careful amigo! I was going to post that it's great to see you and Lusty Lad back and getting along. You're two of my favorite posters and make the board a lot more interesting. Stay on topic. Try not to get banned, and stick around for a while!

For a while? You know me. Lusty and I can do time standing on our heads.

This time might be different.





Of course . . . .

Not everybody follows the rules.

Math ??????

Just watch a couple shows of "Let's make a Deal".

Or a few shows of "The Price is Right"

Or the GONG show.

The better question is does Trump understand the math and how it should be universally applied, and the answer is an emphatic "no". And more importantly, just because an equation is provided, and for the sake of argument let's say that it is correct, that does not mean it applies to each trade partner broadly no matter what because the variables are different and there is not simply one size fits all like Trump wants to do. That's just pure laziness and no planning... kind of like his McDonald's diet.

You can't just apply a damn math formula and say, "we've finally figured it all out so let's apply it to everything to fix the trade deficit." And more importantly, who the hell said the math is even correct in the 1st place? Does Navarro have a PHD in math from MIT? Hell, I looked at that goofy formula and thought it was about a fraternity that one of my college buddies is/was in. Haha

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phi_Delta_Epsilon Originally Posted by Lucas McCain

Hey Lucas, I thought all your buddies were members of Delta Tau Chi? You know, Dean Wormer's scourge:





You make a good point, though. The trump team wanted to be able to say - look, we're treating everyone the same. Don't act like we're singling you out as a target here. So they decided to roll out a tariff formula applicable to all. The problem is the formula is embarrassingly flawed and amateurish.

As Tiny confirmed, there is nothing in it to reflect the tariffs (and/or other barriers) each country has erected against our products. It's based entirely on the size of our trade deficit vis-a-vis each country. A country with whom we run a big deficit can get whacked even if it is letting our exports in tariff-free. And what about countries we already run a surplus with? Why should they be penalized at all?

You're right, Lucas - the variables are different for each country. (TC illustrated this in his apt and entertaining Madagascar example.) That's one of the reasons it took so long to negotiate successive new rounds of "multi-lateral" trade liberalization ever since GATT was launched back in 1947. Does anyone even remember GATT - or what the acronym stands for?

But wait - shouldn't we give Trump a smidgen of credit here? For years, nobody paid any attention to trade flows. Unless you were a GATT negotiator or worked in the US Commerce Department enforcing rules against unfair trading/dumping practices. Otherwise, it was a distinctly dull and boring topic. Not anymore. Now that Trump is stirring up the pot, everyone has overnight become an international trade "expert". Trumpy has made it sexy, even for folks who don't have a clue what they're talking about.

Many economists mull the idea that trade deficits are not harmful.

A huge wealthy country with plenty of disposable income can buy. Investment in goods to run the economy is a needed expense.

A poor country cannot.

That is as far as I have gotten on dissecting any harm trade deficits cause. The scholarly papers tend to be long.

Many economists mull the idea that trade deficits are not harmful.

A huge wealthy country with plenty of disposable income can buy. Investment in goods to run the economy is a needed expense.

A poor country cannot.

That is as far as I have gotten on dissecting any harm trade deficits cause. The scholarly papers tend to be long.

Hey Lucas, I thought all your buddies were members of Delta Tau Chi? You know, Dean Wormer's scourge:





You make a good point, though. The [d]ump team wanted to be able to say - look, we're treating everyone the same. Don't act like we're singling you out as a target here. So they decided to roll out a tariff formula applicable to all. The problem is the formula is embarrassingly flawed and amateurish.

As Tiny confirmed, there is nothing in it to reflect the tariffs (and/or other barriers) each country has erected against our products. It's based entirely on the size of our trade deficit vis-a-vis each country. A country with whom we run a big deficit can get whacked even if it is letting our exports in tariff-free. And what about countries we already run a surplus with? Why should they be penalized at all?

You're right, Lucas - the variables are different for each country. (TC illustrated this in his apt and entertaining Madagascar example.) That's one of the reasons it took so long to negotiate successive new rounds of "multi-lateral" trade liberalization ever since GATT was launched back in 1947. Does anyone even remember GATT - or what the acronym stands for?

But wait - shouldn't we give [D]ump a smidgen of credit here? For years, nobody paid any attention to trade flows. Unless you were a GATT negotiator or worked in the US Commerce Department enforcing rules against unfair trading/dumping practices. Otherwise, it was a distinctly dull and boring topic. Not anymore. Now that Trump is stirring up the pot, everyone has overnight become an international trade "expert". [D]umpy has made it sexy, even for folks who don't have a clue what they're talking about. Originally Posted by lustylad

So we're supposed to give him a speck of credit just for bringing up the issue? And at the same time the execution of a retarded economic formula we're just supposed to forget!

This is the only toga party I want.


He's not looking to be fair with anyone. Any country. He wants favors. He is the symbol of Crony Capitalism.

Anything he can do to win in his eyes.

A creation of retarded Reagan.