Long term, though, it's not at the expense of the local population, but to their benefit (assuming the tariffs only apply where there is a practical possibility for local options).
Compare to before the 60s and 70s. CEO pay compared to average worker pay was ridiculously closer. Things costed more but people made more. People did not have so many random electronics, but the thing they had were well built and lasted (and were repairable).
Then, manufacturing started to outsource to the third world to cut costs. Some of that went on to the consumer, but much of it went directly to the top. And more importantly, a once strong middle class started to bifurcate into a few extremely wealthy and the rest barely able to scrape by even with two incomes (and all of the follow-ons from that like birth rate decline and massive immigration).
In the end it's all subjective, but I prefer a strong middle class with real power and liberty.
Long term, though, it's not at the expense of the local population, but to their benefit
If they worked as intended, of course. However there should be a lot of other conditions for subsidizing of whatever kind to be successfull. F.e. average enterpreneur will not rise the quality and reliability of goods he produce, if he could just sell them for higher price thanks to tariffs.
Here we comes to question of ethics in profit-driven capitalism, which is unfortunately have bad answers.
The reason state need tariffs to support domestic business is that local businessmans decided that they will get more profit moving manufacturing out of country to the cheaper regions. With some ethics and care about local people from the businessman, there would have no such situation in the beginning. And now the same businessmans who destroyed local manufacturing get subsidies from the state. Guess how that will go.
State need not only subsidies/preferences for local manufacturing, but also strict control over manufacturers on how they use that situation - just happily fill their pockets doing so called "screwdriver assembly" of "made in USA" things or really invest into means of manufacturing and skilled workforce for whole production cycle.
In the end it's all subjective, but I prefer a strong middle class with real power and liberty.
Not very subjective, really. Strong middle class means reliable state and well-being of whole population.
The reason state need tariffs to support domestic business is that local businessmans decided that they will get more profit moving manufacturing out of country to the cheaper regions. With some ethics and care about local people from the businessman, there would have no such situation in the beginning. And now the same businessmans who destroyed local manufacturing get subsidies from the state. Guess how that will go.
If you make it too expensive to outsource manufacturing, then those companies need to compete with other local companies. In even a moderately efficient market, if you are price-gouging then there will be other competition that comes in at a lower price. Similarly, if you need to compete with other local companies for labor then you need to pay better.
This assumes efficient markets, though. However, every system will always tend towards consolidation and monopoly, it is ingrained in human nature. To counter this you would need robust breakup of monopolies. This also will eventually be gamed or corrupted.
Then we're back to natural cycles of consolidation, revolt, decentralization, repeat.
If you make it too expensive to outsource manufacturing, then those companies need to compete with other local companies.
Of course. But that's not what happening. F.e. iPhones completely made in China are accounted as "made in USA" and not fall under tarifs.
To counter this you would need robust breakup of monopolies.
Today it is nearly impossible to do anything with monopolies, unfortunately. Electronics and software made vendor lock and monopolisation even simplier than any time before.
Then we're back to natural cycles of consolidation, revolt, decentralization, repeat.
That's not right if civilisation can't develop without that cycles. Unfortunately nobody cares.
Long term, though, it's not at the expense of the local population, but to their benefit (assuming the tariffs only apply where there is a practical possibility for local options).
Compare to before the 60s and 70s. CEO pay compared to average worker pay was ridiculously closer. Things costed more but people made more. People did not have so many random electronics, but the thing they had were well built and lasted (and were repairable).
Then, manufacturing started to outsource to the third world to cut costs. Some of that went on to the consumer, but much of it went directly to the top. And more importantly, a once strong middle class started to bifurcate into a few extremely wealthy and the rest barely able to scrape by even with two incomes (and all of the follow-ons from that like birth rate decline and massive immigration).
In the end it's all subjective, but I prefer a strong middle class with real power and liberty.
If they worked as intended, of course. However there should be a lot of other conditions for subsidizing of whatever kind to be successfull. F.e. average enterpreneur will not rise the quality and reliability of goods he produce, if he could just sell them for higher price thanks to tariffs.
Here we comes to question of ethics in profit-driven capitalism, which is unfortunately have bad answers.
The reason state need tariffs to support domestic business is that local businessmans decided that they will get more profit moving manufacturing out of country to the cheaper regions. With some ethics and care about local people from the businessman, there would have no such situation in the beginning. And now the same businessmans who destroyed local manufacturing get subsidies from the state. Guess how that will go.
State need not only subsidies/preferences for local manufacturing, but also strict control over manufacturers on how they use that situation - just happily fill their pockets doing so called "screwdriver assembly" of "made in USA" things or really invest into means of manufacturing and skilled workforce for whole production cycle.
Not very subjective, really. Strong middle class means reliable state and well-being of whole population.
If you make it too expensive to outsource manufacturing, then those companies need to compete with other local companies. In even a moderately efficient market, if you are price-gouging then there will be other competition that comes in at a lower price. Similarly, if you need to compete with other local companies for labor then you need to pay better.
This assumes efficient markets, though. However, every system will always tend towards consolidation and monopoly, it is ingrained in human nature. To counter this you would need robust breakup of monopolies. This also will eventually be gamed or corrupted.
Then we're back to natural cycles of consolidation, revolt, decentralization, repeat.
Of course. But that's not what happening. F.e. iPhones completely made in China are accounted as "made in USA" and not fall under tarifs.
Today it is nearly impossible to do anything with monopolies, unfortunately. Electronics and software made vendor lock and monopolisation even simplier than any time before.
That's not right if civilisation can't develop without that cycles. Unfortunately nobody cares.