They are using trade imbalance as a proxy for protectionism.
Is it oversimplified in a way that causes unjust collateral damage? Yes.
Is oversimplifying a good political strategy, though? Maybe.
Imagine the counter factual where every little detail is accounted for, they use some model to differentiate protectionism from natural imbalances, etc. That takes way longer, possibly stretching into years, can still be very error prone, and assuming those factors are taken into account during negotiations (it clearly affects negotiating position if you have a legitimate grievance) the end result of the oversimplify+negotiate approach won’t be that different from the more details oriented academic style approach. Also starting negotiations with some super complicated white paper does not put you in a strong negotiating position against (other) politicians.
Basically check back in 3 months. If the deals aren’t renegotiated by then I will change my tune.
Is it oversimplified in a way that causes unjust collateral damage? Yes.
Is oversimplifying a good political strategy, though? Maybe.
Imagine the counter factual where every little detail is accounted for, they use some model to differentiate protectionism from natural imbalances, etc. That takes way longer, possibly stretching into years, can still be very error prone, and assuming those factors are taken into account during negotiations (it clearly affects negotiating position if you have a legitimate grievance) the end result of the oversimplify+negotiate approach won’t be that different from the more details oriented academic style approach. Also starting negotiations with some super complicated white paper does not put you in a strong negotiating position against (other) politicians.
Basically check back in 3 months. If the deals aren’t renegotiated by then I will change my tune.