Trump ‘got it very wrong' over tariffs, says economist used by US president
A renowned economist who co-wrote research used by Donald Trump to justify his aggressive tariff hikes says the White House got it 'very wrong'.
University of Chicago Economics Professor Brett Neiman, who was also a Biden administration Treasury official, said the Trump administration wildly overcalculated tariff rates placed on nearly all countries that export to the U.S.
The U.S. Trade Representative released its workings and cited a paper produced by four economists, including Prof Neiman, supposedly supporting its approach.
'But it got it wrong. Very wrong. I disagree fundamentally with the government's trade policy and approach,' the professor wrote in a guest essay for The New York Times. 'Even taking it at face value, our findings suggest the calculated tariffs should be dramatically smaller — perhaps one-fourth as large.'
Neiman said there are numerous mistakes with the new tariff regime, which has placed tariffs of at least 10 per cent of nearly all exporters to the U.S., and up to 50 per cent on some countries with large trade surpluses.
The sweeping tariffs caused stock market chaos on Monday and led to calls from billionaire allies including Bill Ackman to call for a rethink, but Trump dismissed the turmoil, saying 'sometimes you have to take medicine to fix something'.
Neiman said the biggest mistake with the tariffs is the fact that the Office of the Trade Representative said they were calculated at levels that would eliminate trade deficits, because that was not a reasonable goal.
'Trade imbalances between two countries can emerge for many reasons that have nothing to do with protectionism,' he said.
He highlighted the trading relationship with Sri Lanka as an example: Americans spend more on Sri Lankan-made clothing than the South Asian country spends on American drugs and gas turbines, and that reflects differences in development and resources.
'The deficit numbers don't suggest, let alone prove, unfair competition,' Prof Neiman said.
While there are some arguments for reducing the overall trade deficit - which is when the value of a country's imports exceeds the value of its exports - Neiman said it made little sense to apply this on a country-by-country basis.
The economist also pointed out that the reciprocal tariffs would not even achieve this goal, particularly given the broad nature of the changes.
'A large tariff on Japanese auto parts could cause an increase in demand for imports from Mexico and vice versa. And the tariffs clearly invite retaliation and may over time increase the dollar's value, both factors that would most likely depress US exports,' he said.
Ignoring both of those problems, Neiman said even the calculation used to formulate the tariffs, including the part using the research he co-authored, was incorrect.
Based on the research he conducted with Alberto Cavallo, Gita Gopinath, Jenny Tang, Neiman said they estimated that domestic importers would bear a 95 per cent increase (pass through) in prices: 'In simple terms, that implies that the price paid for U.S. imports would rise almost as much as the tariff rate.'
But he said the Trump administration used a different figure to calculate the rate of pass through, using a rate of 25 per cent.
'Where does 25 percent come from? Is it related to our work? I don't know. The reciprocal tariffs have enormous implications for workers, firms, consumers and stock markets around the globe. But the methodology note offers shockingly few details,' Prof Neiman said.
He said the tariffs should be scrapped entirely, but barring that: 'the administration should divide its results by four'.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Spectator
an hour ago
- Spectator
Who started the Cold War?
Over a few short months after the defeat of Nazism in May 1945, the 'valiant Russians' who had fought alongside Britain and America had 'transformed from gallant allies into barbarians at the gates of western civilisation'. So begins Vladislav Zubok's thorough and timely study of the history of the Cold War – or, as he nearly entitled the book, the first Cold War. For the themes that underpinned and drove that decades-long global conflict – fear, honour and interest, in Thucydides's formulation – are now very contemporary questions. 'The world has become perilous again,' writes Zubok, a Soviet-born historian who has spent three decades in the West: Diplomacy ceases to work; treaties are broken. International institutions, courts and norms cannot prevent conflicts. Technology and internet communication do not automatically promote reason and compromise, but often breed hatred, nationalism and violence. Historians tend to be wary of drawing direct parallels between the present and the past, and Zubok is too wise to arrive at any glib conclusions. The bulk of this concise, pacy book is a narrative history of the postwar world and the great superpower rivalry that defined it. Yet, as we face a new period of strategic realignments, it's inevitably to the dynamics of the Cold War we must look for a mirror of our times. There are many surprises – one being that Joseph Stalin and his entourage had been expecting their wartime alliance with London and Washington to be followed by a period of cooperation. 'It is necessary to stay within certain limits,' recalled the Soviet foreign minister Vyacheslav Molotov. '[If you swallow too much] you could choke… We knew our limits.' Stalin, unlike his rival Trotsky, had never been a believer in world revolution and indeed shut down the Communist International during the war. Zubok argues that the Cold War was caused by 'the American decision to build and maintain a global liberal order, not by the Soviet Union's plans to spread communism in Europe'. Yet nearly four years of nuclear imbalance between Hiroshima and the first Soviet A-bomb test fuelled Stalin's paranoia. And a bloody hot war in Korea could very easily have escalated into a third world war had Douglas MacArthur been given his way and dropped nukes on Pyongyang. Stalin's successor, Nikita Khrushchev, revived international communism as a fifth column weapon against the capitalist world as the Cold War got into full swing. The great power rivalry became the wellspring for every post-colonial conflict, from Cuba to Angola, Mozambique, El Salvador and the rest. Zubok argues that the Cold War was caused by 'the American decision to build a global liberal order' But what is surprising is that, despite propagandists' eschatological framing of the conflict as a fight to the death between rival worlds, there were always pragmatists at the pinnacles of power in both Moscow and Washington. Khrushchev and Richard Nixon, vice president at the time, had heated but cordial man-to-man debates in an American show kitchen at Sokolniki Park in Moscow. Even the arch-apparatchik Leonid Brezhnev became 'a sponsor and a crucial convert from hard line to détente' early in his career, writes Zubok. And the great Cold Warrior Ronald Reagan was a surprising champion of jaw-jaw over war-war. Some of Zubok's assertions are puzzling. Rather than the USSR simply 'running out of steam', its collapse was 'triggered by Gorbachev's misguided economic reforms, political liberalisation and loss of control over the Soviet state and finances'. But that formulation suggests that it was Gorbachev's choices that crashed the ship of state – and raises the possibility that had he not embarked on his reform programme the fate of the USSR might have been different. But Yegor Gaidar, Yeltsin's economic reformer-in-chief, demonstrated in his classic 2007 study Collapse of an Empire that the implosion followed the iron laws of capitalism. The leaky bucket of the Soviet economy had been kept artificially full by high post-1973 oil prices but began to drain fatally after the Saudis collapsed prices a decade later. The USSR could not feed itself without buying US and Canadian grain for petrodollars. Gorbachev or no Gorbachev, the economy was doomed once the oil money dried up. Where Zubok gives Gorbachev credit is in the relative bloodlessness of the loss of the Soviet empire, a world-historical achievement that has long been ignored by modern Russians. Today, Gorbachev is reviled by his countrymen as a traitor and a fool who allowed himself to be taken in by American lies. Yet it is he who is the truly vital character on which any useful comparison between the first and (possibly) second Cold Wars hinges. The first Cold War was, as the Harvard political scientist Graham Allison has argued, born of the 'Thucydides Trap', whereby war emerged from the fear that a new power could displace the dominant one. But Gorbachev envisioned a world where competition for influence and resources would be replaced by cooperation. Rivalry did not have to mean enmity. Zero sum can be replaced by win-win. Sadly, neither Vladimir Putin (who is merely cosplaying as a superpower leader) nor Xi Jinping (who actually is one) have shown anything like Gorbachev's collaborative wisdom. But we can only live in hope that The World of the Cold War is 'a record of dangerous, but ancient times', as Zubok puts it, rather than a warning for the future. Often seen as an existential battle between capitalist democracy and totalitarian communism, the Cold War has long been misunderstood. Drawing on years of research, and informed by three decades in the USSR followed by three decades in the West, Zubok paints a striking new portrait of a world on the brink.
Spectator
an hour ago
- Spectator
How can ‘sanction' mean two opposing things?
Sir Keir Starmer said 'he could 'not imagine' the circumstances in which he would sanction a new referendum' on Scottish independence, the Times reported the other day. The Mirror said Amazon 'has agreed to sanction businesses that boost their star ratings with bogus reviews'. So we find sanction being used with completely opposite meanings: 'give permission' and 'enact a penalty to enforce obedience to a law'. The latter sense was extended after the first world war to cover economic or military action against a state as a coercive measure. That is the use we daily find applied to action, or the lack of it, against Russia. The diverging meanings both go back to the Latin noun sanctio, deriving from the verb sancire 'to render sacred', hence 'inviolable'. Such a sanctio came to mean a decree, as in that obscure beast of history, the pragmatic sanction, which looks neither pragmatic or like a sanction. The phrase had a good run for its money, though, labelling a decree attributed to St Louis of France against the Papacy in 1268 and a decree by Charles III of Spain in 1759, granting the crown of the Two Sicilies to his son. I would describe as an anxiety dream the thought of having to write about either. Here, pragmatic meant 'to do with affairs of state', a development of the ancient Greek word that, via Latin, also gives us practical. In English pragmatic acquired the meaning 'practical' only in the mid 19th century, allowing the Americans C.S. Peirce and William James to harness pragmatism to describe a kind of philosophy. As for sanction, it is now also deployed to label the removal or reduction of social benefits. In February this year, 5.5 per cent of claimants were being sanctioned. There is, too, the architect of Dublin's Heuston station (often misprinted as Euston station): Sancton Wood (often misprinted as Sanction Wood).
Spectator
an hour ago
- Spectator
How to game the social housing system
Westminster council has announced that every single social housing tenant in the borough will receive lifetime tenancies. No test of need. No review of income. No incentive to move on. Once you've been awarded a property, you can stay as long as you like. When you die, your adult children may be eligible to inherit the lifetime tenancy too. Social housing tenants in Westminster pay around a fifth of what renters on the open market spend. They also have access to more than one in four properties in the borough, from flats in postwar estates to £1 million terraced houses. The council says it's bringing stability to people's lives but for many young professionals dreaming of their own home, it looks like something else: a bribe. Angela Rayner has secured £39 billion more for social and affordable housing this week. Local councils will use this money not only to build houses, but to buy them from private landlords. It's a form of class warfare which targets the most politically invisible demographic – young, propertyless professionals – whom the state exploits mercilessly. One woman told me that she and her partner rent privately on a joint income of more than £100,000, yet still cannot afford to buy in Westminster. 'We walk past people every day who are being subsidised to live in the middle of London, while we can barely get by,' she said. You may scoff at the plight of high-earning professionals, but do the maths: a couple in London on £100,000 loses around £27,000 to tax, £30,000 on rent and 9 per cent of income over £28,000 to student loans before travel and bills. For many professionals, working hard simply doesn't add up. They are not alone in feeling this way. Another woman I spoke to recently bought a flat in a converted west London maisonette, only to find Japanese knotweed growing into her garden from a neighbouring property. 'If I had normal neighbours, this would have been fixed years ago. But because the flat happens to be owned by a housing association, they're not dealing with it.' She could lose tens of thousands on the value of her home, while her neighbours don't face any consequences. This sense of imbalance is not new, but it's becoming harder to ignore. One woman found herself living above a man who is fresh out of prison. He was placed there by the local authority and uses the property to deal drugs, smoke weed and house his illegal XL bullies. When she complained, he threatened her with his dogs. When she spoke to the council, she was told the placement was intentional, to keep him away from 'negative influences' in a nearby estate. Voters, paying ever more in housing costs, want a system that also rewards those playing by the rules Middle-income earners are paying for a model that rewards dysfunction. In the course of reporting this piece, I spoke to a senior housing officer with more than three decades' experience, a social worker in one of London's most ethnically segregated boroughs and a former official who has witnessed profound changes in social housing. All spoke of claimants who game the system. 'People know what to say,' explained one officer. 'They'll allow mould to grow in their temporary accommodation to get on the council flat track. Or say their partner's become abusive. That gets them priority.' I was told that some families encourage their daughters to declare themselves homeless while pregnant. 'Everyone knows how it works,' one official said. 'You get her on the list and she'll get a flat in a couple of years. They'll take her back in the meantime, then she moves out when a property is offered.' Once housed, few ever leave. 'There's no incentive to move,' said the social worker. 'If you start earning, you don't lose the flat. If you stop, you get help again. People treat it like an inheritance.' In boroughs such as Tower Hamlets, entire communities have been built around this model. 'There's halal butchers, Islamic schools, mosques. The infrastructure is there.' The patterns are impossible to ignore. In Tower Hamlets, 67 per cent of Muslim households are in social housing. The reasons are complex: economic clustering, migration history, support networks, but the result is visible. Often newcomers are helped by others who know how the system works. 'You ask around, someone tells you what to do,' the former officer said. 'It's ingrained.' Fraud happens too, sometimes spectacularly. In Greenwich, Labour councillor Tonia Ashikodi was convicted of applying for council housing while owning multiple properties. In Tower Hamlets, another Labour councillor and solicitor Muhammad Harun pleaded guilty to housing fraud. Staff across multiple boroughs have been caught taking bribes. But most manipulation is quiet, legal and invisible. While middle-income Londoners compete with one another in the housing market, the government buys up more properties, removing them from the private rental pool. Westminster council has just spent another £235 million buying hundreds more properties. Those are now off-limits for those looking to rent or buy, pushing up the price of remaining homes. Here, too, are the hidden costs of the groaning social housing system. 'If you earn £100,000, you lose your child benefit, your tax allowance, your eligibility for support,' one young professional told me. 'But the person in the flat next door could be on full housing benefit and you're paying for them to live there.' For many, that's the injustice. The problem isn't that people are housed, but that they are housed indefinitely, unconditionally and often with more security than those footing the bill. If we're serious about fairness, long-term benefit claimants should be rehoused in cheaper areas. This isn't about punishing those people. In fact, it's the kinder thing to do: it would free up homes for teachers, nurses, civil servants, people who make cities function and who are priced out. A new politics may be emerging from this tension. Not one of ideology but of exasperation. Last month, shadow justice secretary Robert Jenrick published a video in which he confronted fare-dodgers on the Tube, asking why they felt they could get for free what everyone else had to pay for. It went viral for a reason. Voters, paying ever more in taxes and housing costs, want a system that also rewards people who play by the rules.
