In which I suggest that Jared Bernstein got some things wrong.

This was written by an economist whose work I generally find worthwhile.
https://www.vox.com/2019/8/16/20807099/trump-tariffs-china-trade-policy-democrats
But see if you can determine what's wrong with this:

"For example, about a decade ago, the Obama administration placed a tariff on a specific grade of Chinese tire exports, which our Commerce Department believed were being sold here as much as 200 percent below their normal market value."

I'm sure you all got this one right. Assume the normal value of those tires was $75. To sell then to us for 200% below their normal value would be...let's see...200% of $75 is $150...so they were selling them for -$75? PAYING us $75 per tire to take them?

You know what he meant? He meant that the normal market value was 200%--2 times-- as much as they were being sold for. So the normal market value of those tires would have been $150 and they would have sold, or course, for $75...If say "At 50% below their normal value," it's not as dramatic as saying "At 200% below their normal market value.\

Am I picking nits? I don't think so...And then there’s more:

"Another problem with Trump’s current approach is that its goal is balanced trade."

The real problem AS TRUMP SEES IT is not balanced vs. unbalanced trade, it's RUNNING A TRADE DEFICIT WITH A SPECIFIC COUNTRY. That is, Trump believes (or seems to believe) that trade between the US and China should result in either balance--our exports to China are equal in value to our imports from China--of in a trade surplus for us. But bi-lateral trade balances are all but meaningless. I would guarantee you that China has bilateral trade deficits with some countries. And that the US has bilateral trade surpluses with some countries.

AND Bernstein is wrong (in my judgment, although trade economics is not one of my specialties) in saying that the goal is an overall balance--value of exports equals value of imports across all the countries that we trade with.[1] For most of the 19th century, the US ran export SURPLUSES, mostly because we were (particularly relative to Europe) a developing country. And a lot of developing countries run export surpluses. And China is still (relatively speaking) a developing country. And the US is not.[2] He's also wrong in saying "On the other side, globalization’s cheerleaders...view trade deficits as always benign." Even globalization's "cheerleaders" would answer, if asked whether persistent trade deficits or trade surpluses are "benign" or "problematic" would answer, "It depends." (Which is almost always the correct answer in economics.)

[1] GLOBALLY, the value of exports equals the value of imports, because we don't currently trade with any other planets. Just wait...

[2] According to the CIA's "fact book", [ the US ranks 19th globally in GDP per capita, mostly behind a group of small countries, like Liechtenstein, Bermuda, the Isle of Man, and some larger economies, like Singapore and Ireland. China is 108th, just ahead of Brazil.
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2004rank.html