Brent Neiman, a leading economist and professor at the Booth School of Business of the University of Chicago, unexpectedly found himself at the heart of a political and economic fire storm around President Donald Trump’s aggressive tariff policy. The controversy began when the Trump administration cited a 2021 academic paper, Neiman, co-author of the base for his new rates rates, which, according to Neiman, was calculated according to the coarsely. Not a Trump-Cond. The article was cited by the US Office of the US Trade Representative as a methodological basis for the rates that Trump announced. However, Neiman made it clear that he did not endorse the policy or the math behind it. “I disagree with the government’s trade policy and approach,” he wrote. “But even if we take it at face value, our findings indicate that the calculated rates should be dramatically smaller-perhaps a fourth so great.” “They got it very wrong” in a New York Times-on-Ed, Neiman said he was shocked when the administration unveiled his tariff rates. “My immediate thought was’ Gosh, how can these numbers be so high? ” The next day it became personal. “The US trade representative’s office released its methodology and cited an academic paper produced by four economists, including ME, apparently in support of the numbers,” Neiman explained. “But it got wrong. Very wrong. ‘ Abuse Mathematics, failurey formula Neiman, believes that the Trump administration inserted the wrong variable from his study in its tariff model – which led to exaggerated figures. “I think they grabbed the wrong number from our research,” he said. “The one I would use from my own research and in their comparison is actually four times greater than the number they used, and consequently the deficits they calculated are four times greater than I think they should have gotten.” He added: “Where does 25% come from? Does it relate to our work? I don’t know.” Defective strategy Neiman also criticized the Trump administration’s goal of eliminating bilateral trade deficits through reciprocal rates, which calls it an unrealistic and economically unhealthy goal. “Trade imbalances between two countries can come forward for many reasons that have nothing to do with protectionism,” he wrote. “Americans spend more on clothing produced in Sri Lanka than Sri Lanka spends on US pharmaceuticals and gas turbines. What? The pattern reflects differences in natural resources, comparative advantage and developmental levels.” “The deficit numbers do not suggest, let alone proof, unfair competition.” Neiman’s final word: Divide by four or scrap It Neiman believes that the administration should completely “delete” the tariff policy. For that, he recommends a dramatic recalibration. “The administration must divide its results by four.” From the Academy to Treasury – but not a Trump insider Neiman is no political beginner. He served as an official in the US Treasury division in the Biden Administration and has deep expertise in the global trade economy. But he has no connection to Trump’s team. Rates announced the rates on “Liberation Day” The Tariks, which was revealed on what Trump ‘Liberation Day’ called, was offered on giant cards in the White House Rose Garden. It contains a 10% baseline tax on all imports and even higher rates for specific goods such as Italian coffee, Japanese whiskey and Asian sports clothing. Trump claims that the move is designed to fight back against barriers to foreign trade and producing US manufacturing. “It’s an economic revolution, and we’ll win,” Trump wrote about Truth Social. But the move caused an immediate market route and dual criticism. Stock plunged worldwide, and economists have warned against an imminent financial storm.
Who is the economist Brent Neiman? Is he behind Donald Trump tariff calculation? Why does he think Trump “did it all wrong”? | Today news
