This is the formula for how Trump calculated his new tariffs. There's something pretty surprising buried inside of it. But first, we're going to translate this into English… - ThreadSky

planetmoney.bsky.social • 55 days ago

This is the formula for how Trump calculated his new tariffs. There's something pretty surprising buried inside of it.

But first, we're going to translate this into English…

Comments

planetmoney.bsky.social•55 days ago

Notice something interesting? For maybe the first time ever, Trump's economists are admitting that tariffs raise prices. It's right there in the formula, in red. And they’re using that number to calculate the new tariffs.

planetmoney.bsky.social•55 days ago

So what’s that number? How much do Trump’s economists think tariffs will raise prices by? Their guess is “0.25.”

Meaning they think the new 34% tax on Chinese products will make those things 8.5% more expensive for Americans. So that $1,000 fridge from China might now cost an additional $85.

planetmoney.bsky.social•55 days ago

But is that the right guess for how tariffs will affect the economy? And does this formula itself even make sense? We break it all down in our latest reporting:

https://buff.ly/XkBRdo0

nielloeb.bsky.social•53 days ago

The economist whom Trump based one of those Greek letters on says the number does not come from him.

phillykrd123.bsky.social•53 days ago

This dude is trying to legitmize his Tariff numbers lol. Congress bitchs about NPR and holds a hearing and now all of a sudden you have to twist yourself into a pretzel making his Tariff BS make sense. Be honest. You dont have to lie to please his MAGA base.

okiefrommuskogee.bsky.social•53 days ago

No NPR, the formula and logic are BS. Stop being apologists for incompetent morons while the marker shreds $6T.

okiefrommuskogee.bsky.social•53 days ago

Market. Please give us an edit button.

mbandman.bsky.social•53 days ago

The economists reference in the formula derivation say they got the coefficient wrong. It’s .94, not .25.

https://bsky.app/profile/maxboot.bsky.social/post/3lm3vle2syc2c

rvogfifi8.bsky.social•53 days ago

https://bsky.app/profile/rvogfifi8.bsky.social/post/3lm5yn4cuds26

jimgmal.bsky.social•53 days ago

You're looking for reasoning when there isn't any ...🙃

g8trz.bsky.social•53 days ago

Esperanto?

salivanto.bsky.social•53 days ago

I can't be. I mean, I UNDERSTAND Esperanto.

paularyburn.bsky.social•53 days ago

Reciprocal tariffs should be based on the other country's tariffs... not on an overall trade imbalance on goods, which can be caused by many factors, besides leaving out services. Lame.

justabillwaiting.bsky.social•53 days ago

Formulas make it look official and well thought out.

skyla50.bsky.social•53 days ago

Look at the ‘real’ tariffs are that each country assesses today..🤦‍♀️
Said he got Vietnam to agree to zero when they only had a 1.2% tariff to begin with not the 34% he was charging them that he said was ‘half’
https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/list-of-tariffs-by-country

scratch54.bsky.social•53 days ago

Nothing in economic theory or its application in history support Trump's current use of tarrifs. Trump is nagically thinking.

lulusdad.bsky.social•53 days ago

blueheart-here.bsky.social•53 days ago

How about this formula: E (Elon) = MC2 (More Crap2). Now THAT formula makes sense to me.

rhino-33.bsky.social•53 days ago

Do the rubes see the irony in their formulae being Greek, their number system Arabic?

petigrusghost.bsky.social•53 days ago

This formula can also be used to predict the yield from a U235 nuclear device.

mdtiemann.bsky.social•53 days ago

Let's evaluate in terms of elasticity. Few people buy steel as a discretionary feel-good purchase. Steel itself is thus inelastic, but things made of steel (farm equipment, bridges, etc) may well have elastic demand. When those purchases are cancelled/deferred, much more than steel suffers.

flynavy77.bsky.social•55 days ago

Here … here is the number!

drspiff.bsky.social•55 days ago

Rho*epsilon almost equal 1.0 by definition so why include them?

its-jen-again.bsky.social•53 days ago

📌 your post deserves to be shared!

I loved the SNL cold open addressing that exact formula! 🤣

somedumbguy.bsky.social•55 days ago

What is surprising is that it calculates trade imbalance of goods, not tariffs. The idea that we need to be neutral or positive with every individual country in goods bought vs good sold is stupid. It is also not how you calculate a tariff rate.

catpushmike.bsky.social•53 days ago

Stop pretending any thought was put into this tantrum. Trump doesn’t listen to economists. His goal was to declare a trade war with the rest of the world with maximum impact. Tariffs are his weapons and he uses them as blunt instruments. The “formula” was cobbled together after for fake legitimacy.

alanmathison.bsky.social•53 days ago

Wouldn’t make more sense to measure trade per capita? Canada has 12% of US population. It makes no sense to expect a balanced trade with so many fewer consumers. Roughing out data, I only show 9 countries with a per capita trade deficit, led by China, while Canada is top 10 surplus per capita.

parrea.bsky.social•55 days ago

It's a really impressive way to say "Arbitrary Number". It looks very impressive and mathematical but it's really just spin.

parrea.bsky.social•55 days ago

Hundreds of penguins are, even now, trying to negotiate with Elon Musk... I mean Donald Trump.

guiterasecon.bsky.social•53 days ago

If this was P.Y. that will make me sad.

Comments

Posting Rules

Reply