Brent Neiman, a former Treasury Department official and a professor at the University of Chicago under Biden, explained Trump administration to the public because he abused his research on tariffs.
Economist took off him frustrations In a New York Times Guest article, published on Monday, he challenged the management for referenced to the academic work in the calculations behind the tariff policies – he claimed that they mış misunderstanding ”.
Neiman’s work, written with the other three economists, examined the economic impact of tariffs, especially on the impact of US trade deficits and tasks on imports.
Neiman’s work implied that tariffs should be much lower than the imposed imposed. However, in the “Mutual Tariff Calculations” report, the US Trade Representative (USTR) stated that it is much to defend much more upright tariff rates.
Neiman wrote that the quotes of the management’s findings in OP-ED contain basic flaws. He did not believe that he used the research of Ustr, directed by Robert Lighthizer, a Trump Administration Trade Representative, to justify the ratings of “dramatic higher” tariff rates than he was guaranteed. Neiman said the tariffs are about four times higher than the specified data.
Neiman, the office of the US trade representative published He seemed to approve an academic article written by the methodology and four economists, including himself. However, he said that Ustr was “misunderstood” and was “very wrong”.
In particular, Neiman, Ustr, how much of the tariff load from the importer to the consumer explaining a key figure, a 25% “transition” rate rather than the 95% transition rate calculated by the research said. Neiman, if the government was working more accurately than Neiman’s work, the resulting tariffs would be much lower, Neiman Neiman said.
Economists criticize the mutual tariff strategy
Neiman’s critique has gone beyond the defective implementation of his research on the general strategy behind tariffs. The policy of the Trump administration was based on “mutual tariffs için to reduce trade deficits with some countries. The policy was a part of Trump’s strategy for “flattening the playground” in trade and a special targeting strategy for countries, including China, Mexico and the European Union.
Neiman argued that the pursuit of zero trade vulnerabilities by increasing tariffs is a misunderstanding. He said that trade inequalities are generally the product of many economic variables, including differences in natural resources, comparative advantage and stages of economic development, but not limited to them. He said that the Americans spent more than the Sri Lankans spent on American goods on the clothes made in Sri Lanka, and that this was not an indication of unfair competition, but rather the result of different economic structures.
Neiman, the imbalances in trade between the two countries, may occur for any reason that is not related to protectionism, Neiman wrote that the management extremely simplifies the problem, he added.
Neiman drew attention to another big problem: the formula used to calculate new tariffs broke down. The formula was based on the assumption that tariffs in one country would not change imports from other countries and affect exports. Neiman said that this assumption is not realistic about large, comprehensive tariffs applied as for more than one country.
Neiman said that a large tariff on Japanese automobile parts can increase the demand for automobile parts from Mexico as manufacturers seek cheaper alternatives and increase the opposite. He also said that tariffs would probably invite retaliation and increase the value of the dollar over time and damage US exports.
Policy makers, who bend academic research in a way that complies with their agenda, prove that there is a costly and controversial movement.
Neiman’s works initially aim to direct policy makers in the best way to impose tariffs. He even expressed his disappointment in monitoring that his research was used to justify misinterpretation and policies he opposed.
Neiman did not fundamentally participate in the government’s trade and trade policy approach in OP-ED. The authority added that the findings show that the calculated tariffs should be much smaller.
The dust on Neiman’s research reflects the lasting debates on the trade policy in America. The global economic landscape is developing and the US relationship with trade partners continues to be a warm issue in politics. He asks the questions about the policy -creating process, transparency and accountability, which includes good use of academic research.
Cryptopolitan Academy: Are you tired of market release? Learn how DeFI can help you get stable passive income. Sign up now
