15 ms·

For extra sauce on the "they're barely even thinking about this" cake someone figured out where those crazy "Tariff Charged" numbers were coming from, they're t

by rtkwe 2y ago

For extra sauce on the "they're barely even thinking about this" cake someone figured out where those crazy "Tariff Charged" numbers were coming from, they're taking the trade deficit and dividing by the total imports from that country. https://imgur.com/a/jBTiz7T https://imgur.com/a/jBTiz7T edit: The White House deputy press secretary posted their formula and it is just trade_deficit/2*total_imports per country just dressed up with a lot of fancy language to make it seem smarter but the two extra terms are constants. https://x.com/KushDesai47/status/1907618136444067901 https://x.com/KushDesai47/status/1907618136444067901

dsco 2y ago
I've seen this comment a couple of times. What would be a better way of doing it? Also consider that if they would've had a more complex formula, what would be the cost of needing to explain it publicly? Would they then need to start defending the fairness of each tariff vs doing it the simple way and having a single formula across the board?
- rtkwe 2y ago
  Consider actual tariffs? A trade deficit isn't a tariff or trade barrier it's just the natural flow of commerce from them selling more stuff than they buy. They're dressing it up like these countries are charging US imports these crazy tariffs but they're not at all, especially not across the board. That's imminently doable but would require more work than plugging in 2 numbers from the US trade delegation website so we get this complete lie instead. Trump has had it in his head for ages that trade deficit == tariff (or is lying about that to make his supporters swallow this as the US just fighting back) and it's a completely broken understanding of trade.
  - rayiner 2y ago
    > Consider actual tariffs? A trade deficit isn't a tariff or trade barrier it's just the natural flow of commerce from them selling more stuff than they buy That’s just defining what a trade deficit is, it doesn’t explain why trade deficits arise. For example, other countries have cheaper labor and laxer environmental regulations. Simply looking at the country’s tariff rates on U.S. goods doesn’t account for the whole picture.
    - nkmnz 2y ago
      Yeah sure, Europe is absolutely known for their lax environmental regulations…
      - scrollaway 2y ago
        GP said other countries, not "Europe". And Europe does have cheaper labor. Even in western europe you can find a 5x-10x difference in certain salaries especially in white collar industries. Assume good faith.
    - tremon 2y ago
      Other countries also have different population numbers. To take a random example, why would e.g. Uruguay (population 3.5M) buy as much from the US (population 100x) as the US is able to buy from them? Besides, if the trade volume is what determines the tariff, why would any country want to have a trade surplus with the US? The best solution for other countries is to artificially limit their exports, or find more reliable trading partners.
      - zuminator 2y ago
        On the face of it that sounds reasonable, but then you look at say China with a 35x population over Canada yet Canadians don't just buy as much from China as vice-versa, they buy CAD$65 billion more. So I don't think the argument that larger countries necessarily have a deficit against their smaller trading partners holds water. I do agree that this madness will only encourage other countries to conduct their trade elsewhere.
      - rayiner 2y ago
        > Other countries also have different population numbers. To take a random example, why would e.g. Uruguay (population 3.5M) buy as much from the US (population 100x) as the US is able to buy from them Because the U.S. can buy from Uruguay only as much as 3.5 million people in that country can produce.
        2y ago
- Henchman21 2y ago
  How about “not doing it at all”?
  - rayiner 2y ago
    How do you propose to fix deindustrialization?
    - bandrami 2y ago
      US industrial output is the highest it has ever been. Where did you get the idea that we "deindustrialized"?
      - smallmancontrov 2y ago
        By looking at where things are made rather than by using hedonic adjustments to multiply up INTC revenue until it hides the problem (or whatever the strategy is today now that INTC is flagging).
        bandrami 2y ago
        Right, doing that shows US industrial output to be at its highest level ever.
        uoaei 2y ago
        Made or assembled?
        bandrami 2y ago
        I mean, both? We actually track this stuff, you know? Or at least we did until DOGE fired everybody who does that
        uoaei 2y ago
        Then what is the breakdown between products manufactured here and those merely assembled?
- Balgair 2y ago
  Um, by picking and choosing what goods need protection in the long term? Like, we can't make more fish. Avocados take a few years to grow new trees. Steel mills don't just appear in Ohio. The worst part is that, even if you believe Donny, he's so mercurial with these tariffs that no one is going to give you a loan to do anything about any of this. This Katy Perry doctrine [0] he's established is just poison to any sort of capital investment. You've got no idea if any of these tariffs will make it to Monday, let alone to the time it takes the mortgage on your t-shirt factory to be paid off. And then you've got a new administration in four years and no idea if they will keep that protection for you either. How are you going to plant a whole vineyard and get it profitable in 4 years when grape vines take 7 years to mature to fruit bearing? There's no point to any of this, even if you believe him. [0] 'Cause you're hot, then you're cold You're yes, then you're no You're in, then you're out You're up, then you're down You're wrong when it's right It's black, and it's white We fight, we break up We kiss, we make up
  - griffzhowl 2y ago
    Overall I agree, but I'm not sure there's literally no point. American primary producers will likely benefit - people who own mines, oil wells, farms, etc., and some American manufacturers too as long as they source enough of their raw materials from within the US that the price hikes on resources from overseas don't bite them too much. Still an overall loss that will be borne by American consumers, but a small section of the population who are already wealthy will greatly benefit...
    - davidw 2y ago
      The point is, as this Senator explains, not economic, but to gain leverage over companies and countries: https://bsky.app/profile/chrismurphyct.bsky.social/post/3lluxkmx7wc2m https://bsky.app/profile/chrismurphyct.bsky.social/post/3llu... "Do _____ and maybe we can cut you some slack on the tariffs" If there is a point and it's not just absolute stupidity.
      - Balgair 2y ago
        I think he's on to something, but then I come back to Hanlon's Razor: Never assume conspiracy when stupidity will do. Sure, they might be trying to do this. But I'd give that a ~3% chance. There is no 'there' there. They are 'burning down your house to cook a steak.' The emperor has no clothes. There are many more ways to say it, but as truly unbelievable as my mind keeps insisting it is, these people are just plain-jane morons.
- griffzhowl 2y ago
  The problem is it's economically illiterate. Trade deficits aren't bad in themselves - they can be a sign that you're getting a good deal. Consider the case where a country with low wages exports raw materials to the US, and doesn't buy back as much from the US. This is the situation for lots of poorer countries who are exporting cheap raw materials to the US, and the US gains from these situations. Trump's policy simply makes all these raw materials more expensive. Another way of reducing trade deficits would be to make Americans so poor that they can't afford to buy things from overseas. Eliminating trade deficits in itself isn't a rational economic goal. Having said that, American manufacurers on average will likely benefit (though maybe not if their raw materials are too much more expensive), but this benefit will only come at the cost of American consumers, who are denied cheaper options from overseas by the tariffs
  - rayiner 2y ago
    You’re calling Trump “economically illiterate,” but what you’re saying will happen is exactly the motivation of Trump’s policy. He just thinks it’s a good thing rather than a bad thing. Trump’s bet is that the upsides will be borne disproportionately by his base, while the downsides will be borne disproportionately by Democrats’ laptop-class base. It’s not irrational to think that will be the result.
    - selimthegrim 2y ago
      Trump also thinks imports subtract from GDP.
    - Workaccount2 2y ago
      I was just talking last night about how ironically the things Trump is doing fall not to far from what Bernie bros have dreamed of. Heavy tariffs and no income tax is pretty much the conservative version of liberal hand outs.
      - tzs 2y ago
        What do they expect to happen if the heavy tariffs either move the manufacturing of those products to the US or make the imports expensive enough that consumers switch to domestic manufacturers? That tanks the revenue from the tariffs, which would make them an ineffective replacement for income tax.
rayiner 2y ago
[flagged]
- StackRanker3000 2y ago
  I don’t understand what you’re trying to say. What rtkwe described is literally what they are? They didn’t say the tariffs are random (unless the comment changed, which would explain why yours makes no sense to me), they said they aren’t what the White House is claiming they are. If you think trying to balance out the trade deficit with every single country without any other nuanced consideration whatsoever is a good approach, that’s one thing (a lot of people would disagree), but there’s no getting around that the information around this is either misinformed or deliberately misleading.
  - scryers_bloom 2y ago
    rayiner does this pretty consistently - strawmanning the argument and acting confused, on most political threads on hn.
    - oa335 2y ago
      I notice he seems to have a GPT-level understanding of issues, offering a thin justifications of his viewpoints, and then just completely ignoring any substantive discussions and instead only engaging in threads where he is "winning". IIRC he is a lawyer, a field where strategically deploying intellectual dishonesty is particularly advantageous.
      - throw16180339 2y ago
        That's why I’ve stopped feeding the troll — I just downvote or flag when necessary. It’s a shame because, years ago, he was one of the better commenters on HN.
      - mrguyorama 2y ago
        He's done this since at least 2016 so you can rest assured he's not a bot. This is a real human being making these apologetics and using classic distraction and whataboutism techniques
jannyfer 2y ago
I just asked ChatGPT with a lazy prompt: "Come up with a formula to impose reciprocal tariffs that will reduce America's trade deficit to zero" and it came up with basically the same formula. Oh man if people in the White House are just using ChatGPT... https://chatgpt.com/share/67ee890e-b400-800b-ac83-90a6147d3212 https://chatgpt.com/share/67ee890e-b400-800b-ac83-90a6147d32... (edit: fixed link)
- api 2y ago
  The Terminator franchise had it that the AI has to nuke humanity and fight a giant war including time travel to take over. Nah, all it has to do is offer to be "helpful" and do stuff for us and we'd be like "sure, go ahead, take over, here let me cut and paste your advice right into a policy document."
  - ben_w 2y ago
    People keep asking me how AI will "take over", they don't like my answer "humans are lazy and delegate everything to the AI".
    - smallmancontrov 2y ago
      They don't like it because they know it's true.
- ignoramous 2y ago
  > chatgpt.com/share/67ee890e-b400-800b-ac83-90a61463212 404. > White House are just using ChatGPT Likely, Grok? https://grok.com/share/c2hhcmQtMg%3D%3D_e8b4c405-3bb8-4f01-9d1d-b3ebd77857c6 https://grok.com/share/c2hhcmQtMg%3D%3D_e8b4c405-3bb8-4f01-9...
- alfiedotwtf 2y ago
  I can't believe that could be real at all, but then remembered we're still on the "Biff has the Grey Sports Almanac 1985" timeline
- rtkwe 2y ago
stirlo 2y ago
Good to see that Trump will be providing subsidies on goods imported from Australia to balance out the -107% trade relationship they have with them. Oh wait its a 10% tariff on Australia too. Better make a new version of this chart with a -117% benefit to the US then...

by rtkwe 2y ago

dsco 2y ago

I've seen this comment a couple of times. What would be a better way of doing it? Also consider that if they would've had a more complex formula, what would be the cost of needing to explain it publicly? Would they then need to start defending the fairness of each tariff vs doing it the simple way and having a single formula across the board?

rtkwe 2y ago
Consider actual tariffs? A trade deficit isn't a tariff or trade barrier it's just the natural flow of commerce from them selling more stuff than they buy. They're dressing it up like these countries are charging US imports these crazy tariffs but they're not at all, especially not across the board. That's imminently doable but would require more work than plugging in 2 numbers from the US trade delegation website so we get this complete lie instead. Trump has had it in his head for ages that trade deficit == tariff (or is lying about that to make his supporters swallow this as the US just fighting back) and it's a completely broken understanding of trade.
- rayiner 2y ago
  > Consider actual tariffs? A trade deficit isn't a tariff or trade barrier it's just the natural flow of commerce from them selling more stuff than they buy That’s just defining what a trade deficit is, it doesn’t explain why trade deficits arise. For example, other countries have cheaper labor and laxer environmental regulations. Simply looking at the country’s tariff rates on U.S. goods doesn’t account for the whole picture.
  - nkmnz 2y ago
    Yeah sure, Europe is absolutely known for their lax environmental regulations…
    - scrollaway 2y ago
      GP said other countries, not "Europe". And Europe does have cheaper labor. Even in western europe you can find a 5x-10x difference in certain salaries especially in white collar industries. Assume good faith.
  - tremon 2y ago
    Other countries also have different population numbers. To take a random example, why would e.g. Uruguay (population 3.5M) buy as much from the US (population 100x) as the US is able to buy from them? Besides, if the trade volume is what determines the tariff, why would any country want to have a trade surplus with the US? The best solution for other countries is to artificially limit their exports, or find more reliable trading partners.
    - zuminator 2y ago
      On the face of it that sounds reasonable, but then you look at say China with a 35x population over Canada yet Canadians don't just buy as much from China as vice-versa, they buy CAD$65 billion more. So I don't think the argument that larger countries necessarily have a deficit against their smaller trading partners holds water. I do agree that this madness will only encourage other countries to conduct their trade elsewhere.
    - rayiner 2y ago
      > Other countries also have different population numbers. To take a random example, why would e.g. Uruguay (population 3.5M) buy as much from the US (population 100x) as the US is able to buy from them Because the U.S. can buy from Uruguay only as much as 3.5 million people in that country can produce.
      - 2y ago
Henchman21 2y ago
How about “not doing it at all”?
- rayiner 2y ago
  How do you propose to fix deindustrialization?
  - bandrami 2y ago
    US industrial output is the highest it has ever been. Where did you get the idea that we "deindustrialized"?
    - smallmancontrov 2y ago
      By looking at where things are made rather than by using hedonic adjustments to multiply up INTC revenue until it hides the problem (or whatever the strategy is today now that INTC is flagging).
      - bandrami 2y ago
        Right, doing that shows US industrial output to be at its highest level ever.
        uoaei 2y ago
        Made or assembled?
        bandrami 2y ago
        I mean, both? We actually track this stuff, you know? Or at least we did until DOGE fired everybody who does that
        uoaei 2y ago
        Then what is the breakdown between products manufactured here and those merely assembled?
Balgair 2y ago
Um, by picking and choosing what goods need protection in the long term? Like, we can't make more fish. Avocados take a few years to grow new trees. Steel mills don't just appear in Ohio. The worst part is that, even if you believe Donny, he's so mercurial with these tariffs that no one is going to give you a loan to do anything about any of this. This Katy Perry doctrine [0] he's established is just poison to any sort of capital investment. You've got no idea if any of these tariffs will make it to Monday, let alone to the time it takes the mortgage on your t-shirt factory to be paid off. And then you've got a new administration in four years and no idea if they will keep that protection for you either. How are you going to plant a whole vineyard and get it profitable in 4 years when grape vines take 7 years to mature to fruit bearing? There's no point to any of this, even if you believe him. [0] 'Cause you're hot, then you're cold You're yes, then you're no You're in, then you're out You're up, then you're down You're wrong when it's right It's black, and it's white We fight, we break up We kiss, we make up
- griffzhowl 2y ago
  Overall I agree, but I'm not sure there's literally no point. American primary producers will likely benefit - people who own mines, oil wells, farms, etc., and some American manufacturers too as long as they source enough of their raw materials from within the US that the price hikes on resources from overseas don't bite them too much. Still an overall loss that will be borne by American consumers, but a small section of the population who are already wealthy will greatly benefit...
  - davidw 2y ago
    The point is, as this Senator explains, not economic, but to gain leverage over companies and countries: https://bsky.app/profile/chrismurphyct.bsky.social/post/3lluxkmx7wc2m https://bsky.app/profile/chrismurphyct.bsky.social/post/3llu... "Do _____ and maybe we can cut you some slack on the tariffs" If there is a point and it's not just absolute stupidity.
    - Balgair 2y ago
      I think he's on to something, but then I come back to Hanlon's Razor: Never assume conspiracy when stupidity will do. Sure, they might be trying to do this. But I'd give that a ~3% chance. There is no 'there' there. They are 'burning down your house to cook a steak.' The emperor has no clothes. There are many more ways to say it, but as truly unbelievable as my mind keeps insisting it is, these people are just plain-jane morons.
griffzhowl 2y ago
The problem is it's economically illiterate. Trade deficits aren't bad in themselves - they can be a sign that you're getting a good deal. Consider the case where a country with low wages exports raw materials to the US, and doesn't buy back as much from the US. This is the situation for lots of poorer countries who are exporting cheap raw materials to the US, and the US gains from these situations. Trump's policy simply makes all these raw materials more expensive. Another way of reducing trade deficits would be to make Americans so poor that they can't afford to buy things from overseas. Eliminating trade deficits in itself isn't a rational economic goal. Having said that, American manufacurers on average will likely benefit (though maybe not if their raw materials are too much more expensive), but this benefit will only come at the cost of American consumers, who are denied cheaper options from overseas by the tariffs
- rayiner 2y ago
  You’re calling Trump “economically illiterate,” but what you’re saying will happen is exactly the motivation of Trump’s policy. He just thinks it’s a good thing rather than a bad thing. Trump’s bet is that the upsides will be borne disproportionately by his base, while the downsides will be borne disproportionately by Democrats’ laptop-class base. It’s not irrational to think that will be the result.
  - selimthegrim 2y ago
    Trump also thinks imports subtract from GDP.
  - Workaccount2 2y ago
    I was just talking last night about how ironically the things Trump is doing fall not to far from what Bernie bros have dreamed of. Heavy tariffs and no income tax is pretty much the conservative version of liberal hand outs.
    - tzs 2y ago
      What do they expect to happen if the heavy tariffs either move the manufacturing of those products to the US or make the imports expensive enough that consumers switch to domestic manufacturers? That tanks the revenue from the tariffs, which would make them an ineffective replacement for income tax.

rayiner 2y ago

[flagged]

StackRanker3000 2y ago
I don’t understand what you’re trying to say. What rtkwe described is literally what they are? They didn’t say the tariffs are random (unless the comment changed, which would explain why yours makes no sense to me), they said they aren’t what the White House is claiming they are. If you think trying to balance out the trade deficit with every single country without any other nuanced consideration whatsoever is a good approach, that’s one thing (a lot of people would disagree), but there’s no getting around that the information around this is either misinformed or deliberately misleading.
- scryers_bloom 2y ago
  rayiner does this pretty consistently - strawmanning the argument and acting confused, on most political threads on hn.
  - oa335 2y ago
    I notice he seems to have a GPT-level understanding of issues, offering a thin justifications of his viewpoints, and then just completely ignoring any substantive discussions and instead only engaging in threads where he is "winning". IIRC he is a lawyer, a field where strategically deploying intellectual dishonesty is particularly advantageous.
    - throw16180339 2y ago
      That's why I’ve stopped feeding the troll — I just downvote or flag when necessary. It’s a shame because, years ago, he was one of the better commenters on HN.
    - mrguyorama 2y ago
      He's done this since at least 2016 so you can rest assured he's not a bot. This is a real human being making these apologetics and using classic distraction and whataboutism techniques

jannyfer 2y ago

I just asked ChatGPT with a lazy prompt: "Come up with a formula to impose reciprocal tariffs that will reduce America's trade deficit to zero" and it came up with basically the same formula. Oh man if people in the White House are just using ChatGPT... https://chatgpt.com/share/67ee890e-b400-800b-ac83-90a6147d3212 https://chatgpt.com/share/67ee890e-b400-800b-ac83-90a6147d32... (edit: fixed link)

api 2y ago
The Terminator franchise had it that the AI has to nuke humanity and fight a giant war including time travel to take over. Nah, all it has to do is offer to be "helpful" and do stuff for us and we'd be like "sure, go ahead, take over, here let me cut and paste your advice right into a policy document."
- ben_w 2y ago
  People keep asking me how AI will "take over", they don't like my answer "humans are lazy and delegate everything to the AI".
  - smallmancontrov 2y ago
    They don't like it because they know it's true.
ignoramous 2y ago
> chatgpt.com/share/67ee890e-b400-800b-ac83-90a61463212 404. > White House are just using ChatGPT Likely, Grok? https://grok.com/share/c2hhcmQtMg%3D%3D_e8b4c405-3bb8-4f01-9d1d-b3ebd77857c6 https://grok.com/share/c2hhcmQtMg%3D%3D_e8b4c405-3bb8-4f01-9...
alfiedotwtf 2y ago
I can't believe that could be real at all, but then remembered we're still on the "Biff has the Grey Sports Almanac 1985" timeline
rtkwe 2y ago

stirlo 2y ago

Good to see that Trump will be providing subsidies on goods imported from Australia to balance out the -107% trade relationship they have with them. Oh wait its a 10% tariff on Australia too. Better make a new version of this chart with a -117% benefit to the US then...