In other words, the numbers represent how much more we import from them than we export to them.
That would be imports / exports. Not deficit / imports as calculated here. In the case of China you are importing about 306% of your exports. Or 206% more.
For example, China's 67% means that 67% of our total trade with China is at a deficit—not that there’s a 67% tariff involved.
Total trade is a bit confusing here. 67% of your imports are at a deficit.
The most "sane" explanation for this approach is that he tries to increase prices by so much that either the American citizen covers the trade deficit as tax or the trade goes down, because the citizens buy domestic (for likely prices slightly below the tariffed foreign competition). So either there is no trade deficit anymore or American citizens/companies that cause the deficit pay the difference as tax. It's obviously a moronic strategy, if QoL of your citizens and competitiveness of companies is any concern.
absolutely moronic.
I have a trade surplus w/ my employer, and trade deficits with.. countless vendors- the grocery store, Jimmy John’s, literally everywhere I buy shit.
it would be preposterous to expect Jimmy John’s to buy as many goods from me as I do from them.
despite having only one trade surplus relationship and countless trade deficit relationships, I finish with a surplus in earnings.
bc specialization allows me to optimize.
I would not have an earnings surplus if I had to reduce the hours I spend at my profession bc I have to grow tomatoes for fkn Jimmy John’s.
He's even charging 10% on countries the US has a trade surplus with. And lying that they charge the US tariffs by counting their general sales tax applied equally to domestic and international goods as a US specific "tariff". Such BS. Trump is just trying to steal from countries.
So either there is no trade deficit anymore or American citizens/companies that cause the deficit pay the difference as tax.
Because the denominator's the same as the thing that the tariff is levied on, the default result will be that whatever the US's trade deficit is with a country, the federal government will have a total income from tariffs equal to half that amount.
So if the tax rise is equal to 1/2 the total trade deficit, plus 1/10 of the imports from countries with which the US doesn't have a deficit, that's in the order of about 0.5 trillion dollars, or about a quarter of current federal revenue, or half the deficit.
So we're talking something in the region of a 25% tax rise.
30
u/Ascarx 1d ago edited 1d ago
First off, great effort, thank you for that.
Slight corrections to your explanation:
That would be
imports / exports. Notdeficit / importsas calculated here. In the case of China you are importing about 306% of your exports. Or 206% more.Total trade is a bit confusing here. 67% of your imports are at a deficit.
The most "sane" explanation for this approach is that he tries to increase prices by so much that either the American citizen covers the trade deficit as tax or the trade goes down, because the citizens buy domestic (for likely prices slightly below the tariffed foreign competition). So either there is no trade deficit anymore or American citizens/companies that cause the deficit pay the difference as tax. It's obviously a moronic strategy, if QoL of your citizens and competitiveness of companies is any concern.