My first question, when the White House unveiled its tariff regime, was: How on earth did it calculate such huge rates? Reciprocal tariffs, after all, are supposed to treat other countries the way they treat us, and foreign tariffs on American goods are nowhere near these levels.

The next day it got personal. The Office of the U.S. Trade Representative released its methodology and cited an academic paper produced by four economists, including me, seemingly in support of its numbers. But it got it wrong. Very wrong. I disagree fundamentally with the government’s trade policy and approach. But even taking it at face value, our findings suggest the calculated tariffs should be dramatically smaller — perhaps one-fourth as large.

Let’s start with the biggest mistake. The office said it calculated its reciprocal tariffs at a level that would theoretically eliminate trade deficits with “each of our trading partners,” one by one. Is that a reasonable goal?

It is not. Trade imbalances between two countries can emerge for many reasons that have nothing to do with protectionism. Americans spend more on clothing made in Sri Lanka than Sri Lankans spend on American pharmaceuticals and gas turbines. So what? That pattern reflects differences in natural resources, comparative advantage and development levels. The deficit numbers don’t suggest, let alone prove, unfair competition.