[brookst]

Not sure why? It’s an irrational policy not based on any kind of sense. I don’t think I’d expect it to be logically consistent. Besides, what do you do with a country where US is a net exporter? Provide subsidies for imports?

It’s all drunk monkeys driving a train… there is no economic theory to expect consistency from.

[libertine]

Unless they think that because it came out of an Excel formula, there's a logic behind it - and honestly, I wouldn't be shocked if these folks have that insight.

> Besides, what do you do with a country where US is a net exporter? Provide subsidies for imports?

In this instance, I believe the thought pattern is: "we're being smart here".

[jkestner]

They’re even adding Greek letters, very intelligent. https://x.com/Brendan_Duke/status/1907741651172311353

[libertine]

I'll be damned, I had no idea and I still got it right.

Once people accept that this administration is very much like the Russian regime, where everyone is the type of person playing to an aesthetic, you see this stuff coming miles away.

This is what these sorts of people would do.

[rayiner]

It’s not “irrational.” It’s crude, but it’s based on a logic that, on average, trade deficits should generally reduce to zero. And I strongly suspect this is about our large, diversified trade partners (EU, China) and is simply being imposed across the board for appearances.

[brookst]

There is no “logic” that any two country pairs should have an equal trade balance.

“Belief” or “dogma” or even “idea” would work, but there’s no logic in that claim.

There’s not even a policy goal. If the intent is to convert the US from a net importer to neutral or even a net exporter, it means our cost of production needs to be about average. Which means our populace’s quality of life needs to be about average; wealthy countries are more expensive to produce in. Mix in the supposed interest in economic and social liberty, and you’ve got a country trying to destroy its own wealth in the name of controlling what its freedom-loving citizens buy

There is no logic here. It’s drunk monkeys all the way down.

[amluto]

Imagine the classical triangular trade. Three countries can have entirely balanced trade, yet each country has a 100% trade deficit with another country. Everyone benefits, and no one runs a trade deficit. Throw a huge tariff in and a country’s trade, imports and exports, will collapse.

[oa335]

> a logic that, on average, trade deficits should generally reduce to zero.

1. Why do you believe this is true?

2. Why do you believe that 0 trade deficits are a good thing?