The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
A Computational Error May Be Driving the Size of the Tariffs
Tariffs #2: AEI says that the Administration Seems to Have Used the Wrong Number in its Formula
In an American Enterprise Institute article, Kevin Corinth and Stan Veuger claim that the Administration made a mistake when figuring the "reciprocal" tariffs that are the basis for its the schedule of tariffs released last week:
The formula for the tariffs, originally credited to the Council of Economic Advisers and published by the Office of the United States Trade Representative, does not make economic sense. The trade deficit with a given country is not determined only by tariffs and non-tariff trade barriers, but also by international capital flows, supply chains, comparative advantage, geography, etc.
But even if one were to take the Trump Administration's tariff formula seriously, it makes an error that inflates the tariffs assumed to be levied by foreign countries four-fold. As a result, the "reciprocal" tariffs imposed by President Trump are highly inflated as well.
The alleged error is a technical one:
The Trump Administration assumes an elasticity of import demand with respect to import prices of four, and an elasticity of import prices with respect to tariffs of 0.25, the product of which is one and is the reason they cancel out in the Administration's formula.
However, the elasticity of import prices with respect to tariffs should be about one (actually 0.945), not 0.25 as the Trump Administration states. Their mistake is that they base the elasticity on the response of retail prices to tariffs, as opposed to import prices as they should have done. The article they cite by Alberto Cavallo and his coauthors makes this distinction clear. The authors state that "tariffs [are] passed through almost fully to US import prices," while finding "more mixed evidence regarding retail price increases." It is inconsistent to multiply the elasticity of import demand with respect to import prices by the elasticity of retail prices with respect to tariffs.
Correcting the Trump Administration's error would reduce the tariffs assumed to be applied by each country to the United States to about a fourth of their stated level, and as a result, cut the tariffs announced by President Trump on Wednesday by the same fraction, subject to the 10 percent tariff floor. As shown in Table 1 [in the AEI post], the tariff rate would not exceed 14 percent for any country. For all but a few countries, the tariff would be exactly 10 percent, the floor imposed by the Trump Administration.
Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Measure once, cut twice.
Any graduate student would have looked at the obscene numbers and double checked their work.
The problem with people screaming about everything is that you don't listen to anything. What you might notice if you were in a rational situation is something which you don't when people are screaming at you.
Are you implying that Trump released these tariffs in a panic with people screaming at him? It's as good an excuse as any.
How about the formula inputs are not immutable universal laws and the policy rationales underying the Trump adminstration's calculations are not errors simpy because they differ from the writer's preferred approach?
I interpreted that comment as a variant of 'when people are crying wolf at every crack of a twig, you tune them out and the real alerts get lost in the noise.'
Don’t be so sure the “error” wasn’t intentional.
Trump’s negotiating strategy has always been (1) start by asking for more than you would eventually agree to accept, and (2) put pressure on the other side to act quickly.
That 50 countries (count as of yesterday) are already clamoring to cut a deal with the US to cut their tariffs if we cut ours shows me that “the Art of the Deal” is alive and well. And once he starts cutting deals and dropping tariffs, watch the number skyrocket to include all but one of our major trading partners.
The exception, of course, is China, as Trump’s demands to them will be unacceptable to Xi. But as China’s economy is hyper dependent on exports, largely to the US, if China’s competition isn’t facing crippling tariffs on exports to the US, the pressure on China to cut a deal will increase dramatically.
Under the Doha Round of GATT, member states were supposed to be “negotiating” to reduce their tariffs. The US unilaterally cut tariffs for almost everyone (especially China). But despite the Doha Round starting in 2001, over the past two decades most countries have been quite happy to have an asymmetrical tariff position with the US, and US politicians were unwilling to call them out on such hypocrisy.
Whether you agree or disagree with Trump’s methods, getting other countries to drop their trade barriers is a good thing for the US. And if threatening crippling tariffs is what is needed to get their attention after 24 years of procrastinating, so be it.
Or. He's lying and just looking for an excuse to back down.
threatening crippling tariffs
No longer a threat; actually in place.
LOL that you think this was a pro-free trade move. Just laughable.
Economic pressure on China will be higher than on the US but it's political pressure that will determine who blinks first, and the CCP is less susceptible to voter sentiment than the GOP.
True, but the CCP is facing far more serious economic issues.
Assuming AEI's claims are true, I agree that the errors might have been intentional.
And I hope that you are correct that it's mostly just a negotiating tactic.
That 50 countries (count as of yesterday) are already clamoring to cut a deal with the US
Source?
White House said it Saturday. And then the Secretary of the Treasury said the same thing again today.
Either the number hasn't gone up;
they're not bothering to update their talking points after 2 days on this,
or it was a lie off the break.
Doesn't really matter. What's clear is that not even Trump knows what he'll do, and everyone else is just wishcasting.
Early today Kevin ("Dow 36,000" — which may become true again) Hassett told Fox News that so many countries were clamoring to make deals that Trump was considering pausing the tariffs for 90 days to let talks happen. And then shortly thereafter Trump called that "Fake News," and said he wasn't considering a 90-day pause at all.
The thing is, the cult leader and the cult members are all offering competing defenses of the tariffs — defenses which are entirely contradictory.
As for countries clamoring to make deals, Trump announced yesterday that he wouldn't be satisfied with Europe lowering its tariffs (which are, after all, already quite low even though he pretends otherwise); he wants them to pay annual tribute to the U.S., not just going forward but also retroactively.
In other words, we spent $X on European products, got $X worth of goods, and he just wants them to return a chunk of that $X for some reason only the voices in his head make clear.
That is not a "count." It is a made-up number. (Not by you.)
Upsetting the system of international trade and tanking the markets is not a valid negotiation strategy. Even if he cancelled the tariffs today, the reputation of the US is irreparably damaged.
Raise your hand if you think that any serious economic thought went into the tariff rate decision. To quote Ben Stein: 'Anyone?'. ( as a note, this cam up during a discussion of how Smoot-Hawley did not work)
Several facts argue against any coherency in his tariffs.
* He claims he wants high tariffs to (1) boost domestic production, (2) make up for lax foreign regulation, (3) stop drug smuggling, (4) reduce trade deficits, (5) replace the income tax. Zero tariffs is counter to all those goals.
* He unilaterally violated 15 negotiated trade treaties, including his very own USMCA from his first term
* He imposed tariffs on islands which are part of other countries with their own tariffs.
* He imposed tariffs on countries which already had no tariffs on US imports.
The whole packet is incoherent and slapdash, quite aside from whether anyone agrees with his policy goals. It reeks of incompetence. The tariffs on the two penguin islands are the capper.
He'll need some fast face-saving concessions to avoid this fiasco carrying over into the 2026 elections, and if both houses flip to Democrat, he'll be impeached for real and convicted in 2027 just for abrogating those 15 treaties if nothing else. It's the dumbest own goal I can remember since George Bush's "Read my lips: no new taxes".
ETA: He's got so many reasons and excuses that no matter what happens, he and his fanbois will claim victory.
"he'll be impeached for real and convicted in 2027"
No he won't.
Its 19 months to the election, maybe don't panic.
Biden's inflation had mostly subsided by election time, yet it was still the major topic of discussion other than Trump himself. If Trump lets these tariffs and the economic confusion carry into the summer, people will remember them come election season, especially if the Democrats have an ounce of smarts and remind everyone that Trump taxed penguin exports. It doesn't matter what's rational. People notice home finance kerfuffles more than almost anything else, and unless he drops these tariffs in the next month or two, they will still be reverberating when summer ends.
He only beat Kackling Kamala by 1.5%, didn't even get a majority (49.8%) and the GOP only holds the house by three seats, IIRC. That's too damned close, and it's all down to him. He may be able to pull off some face-saving trick, but this level of incompetence is like Biden remembering ghosts and stumbling on stairs and reading teleprompter instructions. The public will not forget if these repercussions last into summer.
"last into summer"
Good thing its not summer then!
The only way it’s possible for the Democrats to retake the senate is something so impossibly toxic for Trump that Republicans would impeach him before the election.
Losing a war would do it = impeached for real, and removed from office
You missed that he put tarrifs on an island populated solely by penguins.
There is no error, because the tariffs are actually arbitrary. The formula is arbitrary window dressing. The percentages levied do not matter, only that they have substantially increased to punish all the countries who have been ripping us off. There is no "correct" level when you include subjective/fluctuating factors like currency manipulation and the eff-ing bilateral trade deficit.
It's like FDR setting the price of gold in 1933.
I looked up FDR setting the price of gold, because that sounded interesting.
He apparently relied on the price set by a 1900s law, the Gold Standard Act. It was not based on arbitrary vibes.
I don't follow gold news or history, but I did think it was an interesting nugget.
No he did not. That was a cover story. Some of the participants said later he just came up with new figures every morning, pulled them out of his hat, or some other orifice.
I've read the same, though he apparently did discuss it with his advisors. I'm not sure if there was any logic behind the $35.
LOL "nugget."
I got a slightly different picture from the wiki and other pages linked from their Footnote 5. The 1913 law fixed a price of $20.67, while Roosevelt's 1934 act set it at $35.
But more interesting, that FN5 and the related docs it links say that private ownership of gold was forbidden (I assume they mean coins and bullion, not wedding rings). They don't delve into the details. A couple months ago I read two books on the post WWI Austrian/German hyperinflation, where the govt also banned private gold ownership, where compliance was ... not high (who wants to give up gold during a financial crisis)[1]?
Does anyone know how the Great Depression ban unfolded? Compliance rates? People getting prosecuted when they were found with gold coins?
[1]The Austrian govt also banned hoarding food ... which also encountered a low compliance rate. They did have some police raids where someone informed on the neighbor who had a sack of potatoes.
There was never a correct price for gold. Even in prior coinage law, such an assignment is arbitrary. Historically the size/weight of gold coins corresponded to their monetary value. If the law attempted to change it, people would lose faith in or differentiate the newer coins. That's the history of precious metal coin debasement.
There was no reason to change the price of gold, other than as an attempt to manipulate the money supply, anticipating a completely fiat currency.
Trump's formulas are just a variation on that theme. The only credible set point would have been strictly reciprocal, tariff percentage for tariff percentage. Everything else beyond that is just a made up fudge factor, subject to political or lobbying manipulation.
You're one of those anti-Fed nutters?
Heck no, those people are obnoxious nutters.
FDR couldn't rip the band-aid clean off. Not necessarily his fault. What people perceive as money is a complicated psychological question, something the existence of gold bugs demonstrates. Of course, they do not actually understand what money is.
So he set the value based on an actual standard.
But your argument is there are not REAL standards.
And though it wasn't his fault, this means Trump's uneconomic formula has precedent.
I dunno if I think you're even comparing similar things, much less engaging in a useful exercize.
"Ripping us off" is loaded and assumes its own conclusion.
Trade deficit implies lower US consumer prices than could be achieved otherwise. Trade deficits with small countries, especially, suggest that the US gets the benefit of the imports, but that the small trading partner cannot absorb an equal amount of trade from the US. After all, the US can easily absorb all of Cambodia's textiles, but Cambodia cannot absorb the same amount of U.S. XYZ widgets, especially at the prices US manufacturers charge domestically or with first-world trading partners.
The "rip off" Trump is talking about is simply trade imbalance, which is not inherently bad, and only with respect to goods. A huge portion of the US economy is services-based, which adds a whole different layer of analysis.
Just dividing "theirs" by "ours" and carrying the one doesn't tell you anything useful about "ripping off."
If you thought I was using the term "ripping us off" favorably, you are mistaken.
Trump's understanding about trade deficits is retarded.
I think the error was even stupider. Take the deficit and divide by imports and that's the tariff.
https://www.businesstoday.in/latest/world/story/extraordinary-nonsense-us-author-slams-trumps-bad-math-on-tariffs-says-it-ignores-services-white-house-pushes-back-470598-2025-04-03
I am 99.94% sure that the epsilon and phi were just added in to make the formula look like a fancy math equation to the mathematically illiterate. The actual values were plugs intended to multiply out to one.
And dont get me started on the delta symbol.
?
The delta is the part that made the most sense.
If the theory has any basis, then plugging in the deficit experienced with the current tariffs will tell you what adjustment is needed to the current tariffs.
I'm with Ridgeway. It's just smoke.
Besides, why assume that these elasticities are constant across commodities and a very wide range of price changes? They are not.
And demand elasticity of 4? That's an absurd number to use with these price increases. Let's say the new price, with the tariff, is 25% higher than the old price. Given an elasticity of 4 (which is actually -4 for demand) what happens to the demand when the tariff is imposed?
I leave this simple calculation as an exercise for the reader. If prices go up 25% and quantity demanded drops by a percentage equal to four times the percentage price increase, what is the new amount demanded?
It works out that way only because of using the wrong estimate. With the correct estimate, then you couldn't just "take the deficit and divide by imports."
Some people think it was ChatGPT/Grok....
https://www.theverge.com/news/642620/trump-tariffs-formula-ai-chatgpt-gemini-claude-grok
Sam Harris on Trump's lying: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5LKBoH92pVA
It's a feature, not a bug
I note with curiosity the funding sources for at least one of the orgs challenging these tariffs. And now in short order we have Steve C. and Lindgren (who defrosted him?? Twice!) posting similar. Is Lenny Leo sending a message to the MAGA ultras?
1) I'm concerned that the OP thinks that this is a simple data / math error, and if the Trump administration would just correct this teeny weeny little smidge, the OP could fully defend the tariffs and the administration.
2) I'm concerned that the OP thinks that anything that happened in Trump's current term is anything other than creating as much chaos as he can get away with, with the intent of staying out of jail, with just enough scraps thrown to the Republican leadership so they can easily tell their constituents that it's all according to God's plan, and there's no need to speak against Trump, much less begin impeachment proceedings, or protest, or cry in their beer.
Note the OP partially addressed that in an earlier comment reply:
Jim Lindgren 2 hours ago:
"Assuming AEI's claims are true, I agree that the errors might have been intentional.
And I hope that you are correct that it's mostly just a negotiating tactic."
Dow fell less than 1% today and the S&P500 less than a quarter of a percent. Nasdaq actually went up a tick!
Maybe the world is not ending?
No, it is after the Tariffpocolypse, BfO.
Don't you feel like that guy O'Donnell, lol? Exhausted yet?
My sides hurt from the laughter.
Now look at the S&P 500 chart since Trump's tariff announcement.
You really need more than a single day's market results before settling on your predictions, Bob.
Given time over the the weekend to digest a most disagreeable meal, much of the financial sector chatter today was whether they'll be a V, W, or U-type recovery. Little support for V, U seems the middle position, and lots of warning to beware the W.
Chatter among the political and governing classes is more about—no matter whether this market downturn is just a blip (V-theory) or the beginning of a raging Bear—damage to the U.S. will be far longer term and greater than any 1st-order financial consequences.
Because, for the foreseeable future (well past Trump's reign), our country has proven itself capable of...
• neither developing and carrying out rational, consistent policies
• nor establishing trustworthy, lasting international or intranational agreements
So...what are the 2nd- and 3rd-order consequences of that?
There is no computational error because there is no computation. It is just Trump's advisors desperately picking arbitrary numbers after the fact in an attempt to justify their boss's tariffs.
Why would anyone seek out lawyers for information about anything but the legality of tariffs?
I don't understand your question. Who do you think is asking which lawyers, about what?
The content of the post (the parts in |blockquotes) is from two AEI economists questioning the accuracy of Trump administration's use of a 2021 paper a third economist (linked) wrote.
It's in a legal blog. It also doesn't comport with the views of economists going back to Bastiat.
Tariffs are not problematic due to math errors but because they are economically destructive and they violate the right to consensual activities. God forbid that these lawyers would offer a muscular defense of inalienable rights.
https://www.econlib.org/library/Columns/y2017/KleinBoudreauxtradedeficits.html
[moved]