There is no shortage of colorful language (and memes!) being used today to describe the new Trump Tax we're all about to pay -- after having been "liberated" from, y'know, paying less money for stuff. I chose the term financial pundit Ross Gerber used to describe it for the headline, as it seemed the most descriptive:

I was just thinking about it and I've studied this for over 30 years, and I want to try to, you know, reassure people that things are going to be OK. But, honestly, this is just a disaster of idiocy that I can't even tell you beyond proportions.

As we stand on the brink of an entirely self-inflicted economic downturn, that seems about right.

My favorite commentary, however, came from Senator Rand Paul, who had some receipts for President Trump, who praised tariffs from the 1800s and 1930s in his announcement speech:

When [William] McKinley, most famously, put tariffs on in 1890, [Republicans] lost 50 percent of their seats in the next election. When [Reed] Smoot and [Willis] Hawley put on their tariff in the early 1930s, we lost the House and the Senate for 60 years. So they're not only bad economically, they're bad politically.

I have to say, the upshot of (as Trump called it) "Liberation Day" becoming America liberated from voting for the Republican Party certainly would be a karmically-fitting outcome.

Paul said this after voting for a measure sponsored by Democrat Tim Kaine, which would overturn the so-called "national emergency" that Trump declared to slap tariffs on Canada. Congress has this power, but it would require a bill passing in both houses of Congress and then (almost certainly) having to overcome Trump's veto by a two-thirds vote. Nevertheless, the bill did pass the Republican Senate with four GOP votes (Paul, Mitch McConnell, Lisa Murkowski, and Susan Collins). And a second bill to overturn Trump's new tariffs was introduced with a different Republican (Chuck Grassley) as a co-sponsor -- meaning Republican resistance to Trump's tariffs may be rising. But these measures are likely dead in the water in the Republican House, at least until that pushback rises further.

The internet has been having fun with some memes, many of which feature penguins. This was in response to "Heard Island and McDonald Islands" being listed as a country which will now face a 10 percent tariff on all goods. Except that the islands (an external territory controlled by Australia) do not actually have any human beings living on them -- only penguins. Although, being of a certain age, I do have to say I was disappointed in not seeing a single mocking internet meme featuring Chilly Willy... these kids today simply have no appreciation for the classics!

Sorry, but it's a lot easier to laugh at all this idiocy than to think about what it's going to mean for both the American and world economy in the very near future. More idiocy (that's more jaw-dropping than amusing): the rate of the new tariffs was calculated with no measurement of the tariffs other countries charge us. They are theoretically "reciprocal," mean (for instance) a 30 percent tariff from a foreign country on all U.S. goods would (because Trump was being "kind") give rise to a new U.S. tariff of half of this amount, or 15 percent. However, this is not the way the figures were calculated at all -- instead they measure Trump's favorite bugaboo, trade deficits.

Despite some patent nonsense served up (with lots of Greek letters to make it look all math-ey), the way the numbers were calculated was to take the trade deficit with another country and divide it by the total exports that country sends us. Whatever the percentage, it is then (because Trump is being "kind") divided in half and that is the new tariff they'll have to pay to us (except when the number is less than 10 percent, which was the minimum tariff amount slapped on every country -- even one populated solely by penguins -- no matter what).

So let's check in and see what some experts are saying about it all. We'll start with a conservative voice:

Economists criticized the formula for its assumption that persistent trade deficits are a reflection of allegedly unfair trade practices by U.S. trading partners. They point out that the math apparently leaves out services -- which make up the bulk of the U.S. economy and an important proportion of its exports -- from calculations of trade deficits, which has the effect of making U.S. trade relationships look more one-sided.

They also say there's nothing "reciprocal" about the punitive tax rates because they're disconnected from any actual barriers countries impose on U.S. imports.

"They've got an indefensible foundation to an indefensible policy," said Douglas Holtz-Eakin, president of the conservative American Action Forum.

A few more expert reactions to the way the numbers were calculated:

It didn't take long before someone cracked the code on how the White House decided to overturn the global trade order.

The White House claimed to base its decision on tariff rates and nontariff barriers, but economic journalist James Surowiecki reckons it was all just a back-of-the-envelope calculation. "Instead, for every country, they just took our trade deficit with that country and divided it by the country's exports to us," the former financial columnist for The New Yorker posted on X. "What extraordinary nonsense this is."

. . .

Washington claimed its reciprocal tariffs, masterminded by the Council of Economic Advisers, were based on a formula accounting for trade barriers, import elasticities and tariff pass-through rates -- aiming to set tariffs high enough to eliminate bilateral trade deficits. It also considered value-added tax as a trade barrier -- even though this is paid on products and services sold in a country regardless of where the company selling them is from.

The White House's calculated figure of 39 percent is more than 10 times higher than the actual average, trade-weighted tariff charged by the EU of 2.7 percent, according to the World Trade Organization.

Economists across the political spectrum denounced the White House's calculation, in fact:

For as much time as the administration spent preparing for the public rollout of their tariff plan, many top economists were left scratching their heads at the specifics, especially as it applies to some smaller countries and territories that barely do any trade with the U.S.

"This is basically gibberish," said Ed Gresser, a former official in the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative now at the Progressive Policy Institute, a left-leaning think tank.

"What they're doing is sort of saying that this is a reciprocity policy that's based on foreign trade barriers and so forth, but actually has nothing to do with that at all," he said.

Instead, the administration has applied a math formula using export figures and trade deficits to devise levies, he said.

"It's really divorced from economic analysis," he said.

. . .

"The vibe on Wall Street right now is a bit of chaos," said a senior strategist on Wall Street granted anonymity to speak candidly about the collective reaction. "This was a botched and child-like formula used to enforce something with massive implications."

Larry Summers chimed in as well, with a call for any sane economist working for Trump to immediately resign:

Lawrence Summers, who served as Treasury secretary under President Bill Clinton, said he would have "resigned in protest" had he been part of an administration that put into effect the sort of "dangerous and damaging" tariffs plan announced by President Trump.

In a string of posts on X on Thursday afternoon, Mr. Summers compared President Trump's tariff policy to "what creationism is to biology, astrology is to astronomy, or RFK thought is to vaccine science."

He added, "If any administration of which I was a part had launched an economic policy so totally ungrounded in serious analysis or so dangerous and damaging, I would have resigned in protest."

More of what Summers had to say:

"It's now clear that the [Trump] Administration computed reciprocal tariffs without using tariff data," wrote former Treasury Secretary Lawrence Summers. "This is to economics what creationism is to biology, astrology is to astronomy, or RFK thought is to vaccine science. The Trump tariff policy makes little sense EVEN if you believe in protectionist mercantilist economics."

"This is *bananas* The White House 'reciprocal' tariff bears no relation to actual tariff barriers. It's equal to half of the trade deficit (as a share of imports)," wrote economist Justin Wolfers. "This is indescribably crazy."

Or how about we hear from Paul Krugman, who (unlike Donald Trump) has won a Nobel Prize in economics:

The Nobel-Prize-winning liberal economist Paul Krugman called the crudity of the "reciprocal" tariffs formula shocking.

"When the fate of the world economy is on the line, the malignant stupidity of the policy process is arguably as important as the policies themselves," Krugman wrote. "How can anyone, whether they're businesspeople or foreign governments, trust anything coming out of an administration that behaves like this?"

The same article also had a quote from a conservative think-tanker:

"This has to be one of the biggest unforced economic policy errors in US history," wrote David Beckworth, an economist with the Mercatus Center, a right-leaning think tank.

That is a pretty broad-spectrum universal condemnation, folks. Which isn't too surprising, considering how weakly Trump understands even the basics of the world's economy (not to mention the fact that he appears to have lived over seven decades before he ever understood the word "groceries").

So just a quick review. Here's what people are saying about the new Trump Tax on everything:

• a disaster of idiocy
• not only bad economically, they're bad politically
• an indefensible foundation to an indefensible policy
• extraordinary nonsense
• basically gibberish... divorced from economic analysis
• a botched and child-like formula
• this is to economics what creationism is to biology, astrology is to astronomy, or RFK thought is to vaccine science
• this is bananas... indescribably crazy
• malignant stupidity
• one of the biggest unforced economic policy errors in US history

One final cheerful point for everyone to ponder, each and every morning. You know what's really stupid? Levying a tariff on countries that make a product your country doesn't even have the right climate to produce. So as you watch the price of your morning cup of coffee spike upwards in the near future, know full well that you'll be paying your share of the Trump Tax.

Or maybe Trump should raise the tariffs on the penguins up to 200 percent? Yeah, that'd solve the problem! Those free-loading penguins ripping us off have got to be stopped, right? Makes sense to me!

-- Chris Weigant

Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant