logo
Let's Implement Tariffs In A Way That Reduces Tariff 'Sludge'

Let's Implement Tariffs In A Way That Reduces Tariff 'Sludge'

Forbes11-04-2025
If appropriately implemented, new tariffs could reduce 'sludge.' Sludge is a term the podcast 'Freakonomics' applies to unnecessary complexity that makes life more difficult and stressful. Sludge raises costs and distorts the efficient operation of an economy. No area of any economy may have more sludge than tariff classification.
A specific tariff involves a fixed fee levied on one unit of an imported good. This tariff varies according to the type of goods imported. For example, a country could levy a $15 tariff on each imported shirt but a $250 tariff on every smartphone.
The phrase "ad valorem" is Latin for "according to value." This type of tariff is levied on a good based on a percentage of that good's value. An example of an ad valorem tariff would be a 10% tariff levied by the European Union on U.S. automobiles that come complete with internal combustion engines. Thus, for a $50,000 car, the tariff would be $5,000. In contrast, the US has levied a tariff of 2.5% for the same goods from EU entering the US.
A compound tax is a combination of both specific and ad valorem tariffs. In the case of China, the Trump administration is proposing very high ad valorem tariffs imposed on top of the existing specific tariffs.
However, if ad valorem tariffs are going to be significant, why even have specific tariffs? This is an opportunity to reduce trade sludge.
Specific tariffs are based on the international Harmonized System. This is a global system of nomenclature that is used to describe most world trade in goods. This is maintained by the World Customs Organization. Virtually all countries base their tariff schedules on the WCO's Harmonized System. HS codes are six-digit codes.
The Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States is based on the harmonized system. This is the primary resource for determining customs duties classifications for goods imported into the United States. The Harmonized Tariff Schedule classifies a good based on its name, use, and/or the material used in its construction and assigns it a ten-digit classification code number. The HS code is a subset of the U.S.'s tariff schedule - the first six digits are the same.
There are over 17,000 unique classification code numbers in the U.S. But worse than the sheer number of classification codes is the complexity.
Using the right HS code allows companies to pay the correct tariffs. Paying the right tariffs is necessary to avoid hefty government fines as well as to protect brand reputation. The problem is an incredible gap between how products are described commercially and how they are expressed in the national customs tariff schedules.
To say that HS codes are non-intuitive would be a massive understatement. What a regular person would describe as 'baby food' in HS speak is known as a 'homogenized composite food preparation;' a 'hair blower' is an 'electrothermic hairdressing apparatus;' before you can classify 'rayon,' you have to know whether this is an 'artificial' or a 'synthetic' fiber; and if you were classifying an automotive part, like a car alarm, you might think you would go to the section of the HS code focused on automobiles, but no – this is an electronic signaling device.
This has resulted in historic error rates of up to 30%.
Global trade management systems leveraging AI do reduce classification errors. How much is unclear. Further, the application of AI to GTM solutions comes with challenges.
First, the AI's output is only as good as the data input. Data cleansing can help, but often, improving data quality will require supply chain partners to get involved. Freight forwarders may fear that collaboration could lead them to become an unnecessary middleman.
The bigger the model, the better the AI model. A global trade management solution has components for electronically messaging trade authorities with documents on the number of imported goods and their classification, process workflow, and an updated database of how the tariffs should be applied to specific products. The best databases for trade content are built using a public cloud architecture. In other words, the database is shared by all the customers using a particular GTM solution. This allows for much, much larger AI models. However, public clouds do significantly increase the need for strong cybersecurity.
AI can also have a 'black box' problem where users don't understand how the answer was generated. If a trade professional does not understand the logic, they are unlikely to use it.
Further, if a shipper does get audited, it is important that the GTM system provides an audit trail that shows how goods were classified with a logic tree that explains why the goods were classified that way.
In many jurisdictions, this audit trail demonstrates 'good faith' and means that even if a declared good was misclassified, the company would be given credit for exercising diligence and would thus be likely to avoid the most severe penalties. More likely, they would not be penalized at all. Many shippers, if audited, have no ability to explain why they classified goods as they did. Black box AI has the same problem.
For significant ad valorem tariffs, there is an opportunity for simplification. However, trade classification is not the only contributor to trade sludge.
The White House issued an executive order explaining their rationale for reciprocal tariffs and why trade disparities are a national emergency. They pointed to non-tariff barriers that make it harder for U.S. firms to export goods. Non-tariff barriers include import barriers driven by licensing restrictions, unnecessarily restrictive quality standards on goods or technical regulations, sanitary measures that restrict trade without furthering safety objectives, and several other categories of restrictions. One goal of the tariffs is to negotiate reductions in these non-tariff barriers.
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Trump calls on Fed Governor Cook to resign
Trump calls on Fed Governor Cook to resign

Yahoo

time10 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

Trump calls on Fed Governor Cook to resign

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – U.S. President Donald Trump on Wednesday called on Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook to resign, citing a call by the head of the U.S. Federal Housing Finance Agency urging the Department of Justice to probe Cook over alleged mortgage fraud. Representatives for Cook could not be immediately reached for comment on the allegations posted by FHFA Director Bill Pulte on X earlier on Wednesday. Error while retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error while retrieving data Error while retrieving data Error while retrieving data Error while retrieving data

Trump thinks owning a piece of Intel would be a good deal for the US. Here's what to know
Trump thinks owning a piece of Intel would be a good deal for the US. Here's what to know

Yahoo

time10 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

Trump thinks owning a piece of Intel would be a good deal for the US. Here's what to know

SAN FRANCISCO (AP) — President Donald Trump wants the U.S. government to own a piece of Intel, less than two weeks after demanding the Silicon Valley pioneer dump the CEO that was hired to turn around the slumping chipmaker. If the goal is realized, the investment would deepen the Trump administration's involvement in the computer industry as the president ramps up the pressure for more U.S. companies to manufacture products domestically instead of relying on overseas suppliers. What's happening? The Trump administration is in talks to secure a 10% stake in Intel in exchange for converting government grants that were pledged to Intel under President Joe Biden. If the deal is completed, the U.S. government would become one of Intel's largest shareholders and blur the traditional lines separating the public sector and private sector in a country that remains the world's largest economy. Why would Trump do this? In his second term, Trump has been leveraging his power to reprogram the operations of major computer chip companies. The administration is requiring Nvidia and Advanced Micro Devices, two companies whose chips are helping to power the craze around artificial intelligence, to pay a 15% commission on their sales of chips in China in exchange for export licenses. Trump's interest in Intel is also being driven by his desire to boost chip production in the U.S., which has been a focal point of the trade war that he has been waging throughout the world. By lessening the country's dependence on chips manufactured overseas, the president believes the U.S. will be better positioned to maintain its technological lead on China in the race to create artificial intelligence. Didn't Trump want Intel's CEO to quit? That's what the president said August 7 in an unequivocal post calling for Intel CEO Lip-Bu Tan to resign less than five months after the Santa Clara, California, company hired him. The demand was triggered by reports raising national security concerns about Tan's past investments in Chinese tech companies while he was a venture capitalist. But Trump backed off after Tan professed his allegiance to the U.S. in a public letter to Intel employees and went to the White House to meet with the president, who applauded the Intel CEO for having an 'amazing story.' Why would Intel do a deal? The company isn't commenting about the possibility of the U.S. government becoming a major shareholder, but Intel may have little choice because it is currently dealing from a position of weakness. After enjoying decades of growth while its processors powered the personal computer boom, the company fell into a slump after missing the shift to the mobile computing era unleashed by the iPhone's 2007 debut. Intel has fallen even farther behind in recent years during an artificial intelligence craze that has been a boon for Nvidia and AMD. The company lost nearly $19 billion last year and another $3.7 billion in the first six months of this year, prompting Tan to undertake a cost-cutting spree. By the end of this year, Tan expects Intel to have about 75,000 workers, a 25% reduction from the end of last year. Would this deal be unusual? Although rare, it's not unprecedented for the U.S. government to become a significant shareholder in a prominent company. One of the most notable instances occurred during the Great Recession in 2008 when the government injected nearly $50 billion into General Motors in return for a roughly 60% stake in the automaker at a time it was on the verge of bankruptcy. The government ended up with a roughly $10 billion loss after it sold its stock in GM. Would the government run Intel? U.S. Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick told CNBC during a Tuesday interview that the government has no intention of meddling in Intel's business, and will have its hands tied by holding non-voting shares in the company. But some analysts wonder if the Trump administration's financial ties to Intel might prod more companies looking to curry favor with the president to increase their orders for the company's chips. What government grants does Intel receive? Intel was among the biggest beneficiaries of the Biden administration's CHIPS and Science Act, but it hasn't been able to revive its fortunes while falling behind on construction projects spawned by the program. The company has received about $2.2 billion of the $7.8 billion pledged under the incentives program — money that Lutnick derided as a 'giveaway' that would better serve U.S. taxpayers if it's turned into Intel stock. 'We think America should get the benefit of the bargain,' Lutnick told CNBC. 'It's obvious that it's the right move to make.' Michael Liedtke, The Associated Press

Repealing EPA's endangerment finding will cause a public health nightmare
Repealing EPA's endangerment finding will cause a public health nightmare

The Hill

time12 minutes ago

  • The Hill

Repealing EPA's endangerment finding will cause a public health nightmare

As America faces increasing health threats from wildfire smoke, summer heat waves and rising cases of asthma and other respiratory illnesses, the last thing we need is to reverse laws that protect U.S. air quality. Yet, that's precisely what the Trump administration intends to do by proposing a repeal of a central scientific finding that serves as the basis for the Clean Air Act — legislation that has saved millions of American lives and been responsible for monumental advancements both to our environment and public health. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Lee Zeldin announced last month the agency plans to end a long-held 'endangerment finding' that asserts carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases present a risk to human health. If that happens, it will neutralize the federal government's ability to combat climate change and enforce laws intended to protect America's wellbeing. One of those laws is the Clean Air Act. Enacted in 1970, it has been one of the most successful public health policies in U.S. history. It's credited with reducing six of the most common air pollutants in the U.S. by nearly 80 percent while saving over 230,000 early deaths and avoiding over 120,000 emergency room visits every year. It has reduced chronic bronchitis, infant mortality and prevented millions of cases of asthma exacerbation as well. These statistics aren't conjecture: They're sourced directly from the EPA's own website, the same agency now leading the charge to turn the clock back on these remarkable achievements. Zeldin's announcement claims that the reversal of the endangerment finding will 'undo the underpinning of $1 trillion in costly regulations.' But the positive U.S. economic impact from the Clean Air Act alone far exceeds this figure. By reducing hospital visits, sick days and treatment of costly respiratory-related disease, the EPA estimates the Clean Air Act has created $2 trillion in U.S. economic benefit as of 2020 — twice the amount Zeldin asserts the endangerment finding's repeal would create. Further, clean energy has proven itself to be a source of strong job creation. The Department of Energy found that jobs in renewable energy grew more than twice as fast as the vibrant 2023 U.S labor market. And the science couldn't be clearer: Clean air is critical to public health. 'Decades of research have shown that air pollutants such as ozone and particulate matter increase the amount and seriousness of lung and heart disease and other health problems,' the EPA states. Worse, those pollutants are disproportionately burdened by communities of color. A 2024 Milken Institute of Public Health study found that marginalized communities have eight times the number of pediatric asthma cases and a 30 percent higher chance of dying early from pollution exposure. That same study attributed this inequality to the close proximity many minority communities share with industrial manufacturing facilities. Imagine what those numbers would be if the endangerment finding is reversed and the U.S. can no longer enforce Clean Air Act provisions. Zeldin referred to the EPA action as 'driving a dagger into the heart of the climate change religion,' and that it would be 'the largest deregulatory action in the history of America.' But doing so will only cause greater sickness in America and inundate an already stressed U.S. health care system. Increased exposure to air pollution will result in higher numbers of emergency room visits, increased rates of chronic illness and heightened health care costs. The medical and environmental advocacy community agree greater exposure to carbon dioxide and greenhouse gas is a bad idea. Groups such as the American Lung Association, American Public Health Association, American Thoracic Society, World Wildlife Fund, along with nursing organizations and medical societies all stand in strong opposition to the EPA's proposed action. Zeldin's proposal follows another questionable deregulatory move by the EPA in recent weeks to reintroduce dicamba, a weed killer used on soybeans and cotton. Use of the pesticide was halted by a federal court last year. A 2020 study in the International Journal of Epidemiology found that exposure to dicamba was reportedly 'linked to some cancers, including liver cancer and a type of leukemia affecting the blood and bone marrow.' But the EPA has argued it 'has not identified any human health or dietary risks of concern.' The U.S. government's job is to protect America's citizens. The Clean Air Act has saved millions of lives, safeguarded our skies and proven that environmental laws and economic progress can peacefully coexist. Repealing the endangerment finding will set America on a dangerous path and put the health and welfare of every American at risk.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store