No, Tariff Man, That's Not What A Trade Deficit Means

For example, in 2024, the US imported approximately US$605.8 billion from the European Union, but exported only $370.2 billion, resulting in a trade deficit of $235.6 billion.

Dividing the deficit by total imports from the EU gives a ratio of 39%. The White House interpreted this figure as the EU's trade“advantage” and subsequently imposed a“discounted” 20% tariff on EU products – roughly half of 39%.

This same calculation led to a 34% tariff on China, 26% on India, 24% on Japan and 25% on South Korea. More export-dependent developing countries, including many in Southeast Asia, face some eye-wateringly high reciprocal tariffs.

Trade experts swiftly criticised the methodology behind the tariffs. James Surowiecki, a financial journalist, labelled it“extraordinary nonsense.”

While the use of economic formulas in the corresponding US Trade Representative document might give it an appearance of being grounded in economic theory, it is detached from the rigours of trade economics.

The formula assumes every trade deficit is a result of other countries' unfair trade practices, but that is simply not the case. To see why, we need to understand why Trump's obsession with trade deficits is wrong.

Why does Trump detest trade deficits? He appears to think of the national balance of trade like a business or household's finances.

Under Trump's logic, if more money is leaving the“account” than coming in, that's bad business. A $200 million trade deficit would mean the US is“losing” – with money and jobs being siphoned away.

Trump argues other countries have been taking advantage of America by running up big trade surpluses and“hollowing out” US industry. He has long argued that America's massive deficits indicate unfair trade deals, foreign protectionism, and even a threat to national security.

The trade gap is not money simply being drained overseas by allegedly rapacious foreigners. Rather, it represents the exchange of value.

American consumer behaviour is a significant driver of the US trade deficit. As a consumption powerhouse, the United States sees its residents and businesses spending vast sums on imported products ranging from iPhones and TVs to clothing and toys.

Many of these are actually produced by US companies but made overseas. Moreover, those US companies license foreign factories to produce these goods, and the intellectual property revenues earned make up a huge US surplus in services trade .

But services trade does not feature in the formula. This shows the singular obsession with tangible things, or goods trade. Yet, in most supply chains, it is the services components that yield the most value.

Back on the goods side, when the US economy is robust and people have disposable income, imports naturally increase. Ultimately, while trade deficits indicate economic dynamics, they are not inherently negative nor do they signify economic weakness.

Sign up for one of our free newsletters

• The Daily Report Start your day right with Asia Times' top stories
• AT Weekly Report A weekly roundup of Asia Times' most-read stories

Rather, they often reflect a nation's economic structure and consumer preference for diverse global products. After all, Australia has run trade deficits for decades, including with the US , and is one of the wealthiest countries in the world.

The uninhabited Heard and McDonald Islands, home to a large population of penguins, were hit with tariffs in this week's announcement. Image: VW Pics/Getty via The ConversationThe real reason for the deficit

The formula used to calculate the reciprocal tariffs is highly misleading. Responsible policy makers would take account of many other factors in their calculations.

Among other variables, the US Trade Representative formula fails to consider strong US consumer demand for imports. It also overlooks the US government's gigantic fiscal deficit. This requires it to borrow money from overseas, pushing up the value of the US dollar. This strong dollar supports US purchases of imports.

In other words, the US runs large trade deficits not primarily because other nations have high trade barriers but largely because Americans need to fund their debts and want to buy lots of imported goods. The misleading formula places the blame entirely on an ill-conceived notion, and we are all going to pay the price .

Peter Draper is professor and executive director, Institute for International Trade and Jean Monnet Chair of Trade and Environment, University of Adelaide and Vutha Hing is lecturer in international trade, University of Adelaide

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article .

Sign up here to comment on Asia Times stories Or Sign in to an existing accoun

Thank you for registering!

An account was already registered with this email. Please check your inbox for an authentication link.

• Click to share on X (Opens in new window)
• Click to share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window)
• Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window)
• Click to share on WhatsApp (Opens in new window)
• Click to share on Reddit (Opens in new window)
• Click to email a link to a friend (Opens in new window)
• Click to print (Opens in new window)