Yeah, the white house posted the formula for the "reciprocal" tariffs.
View attachment 73085
>>>To conceptualize reciprocal tariffs, the tariff rates that would drive bilateral trade deficits to zero were computed.<<<
Executive Summary Reciprocal tariffs are calculated as the tariff rate necessary to balance bilateral trade deficits between the U.S. and each of our trading partners. This calculation assumes that persistent trade deficits are due to a combination of tariff and non-tariff factors that prevent...
ustr.gov
>>>. . . there are actually two parameters: φ and ε, representing the pass-through of tariffs to domestic prices and the elasticity of demand for imports, respectively, but with values of ¼ and 4, respectively, these parameters happen to cancel out perfectly. . . . More importantly, this is an equivocation: the foreign “tariff rates” are invented numbers derived from no explicit policies, based on the dubious theoretical assumption that unspecified but retaliation-worthy factors conspired to “prevent trade from balancing.” The US responses are actual tariffs. <<<
If you tax trade, you get less of it—both imports and exports alike. Even a less-flawed version of Trump’s tariff plan would be unlikely to achieve its goals.
taxfoundation.org
As far as I can tell, for purposes of "reciprocal" tariffs the administration assumes a zero trade deficit is optimal.
In contrast, the 10% universal tariff apparently assumes that all tariffs are always a good thing, regardless of whether or not the U.S. has a trade deficit with any given country.
>>>For example the US does not currently run goods trade deficit with the UK. Yet the UK has been hit with a 10% tariff.<<<
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c93gq72n7y1o
The tariff formula includes trade deficits for goods, but not services. This is an antiquated view that assumes there is something magic about goods.