>>509302248Ok since you're arguing in good faith I'll respond in good faith and explain my opinion unironically. You don't see that often on pol kek
I think that, first off, you get either the tariff or a beneficial deal with the threat of the tariff, not both. Let's say Trump gets a trade deal that lowers tariffs on both ends, that's better for everyone including the other country of course.
If he doesn't and you get the tariff, sure, the tariff has upsides too, it's not all bad. It's like with price limitations, there's shortages but at least the product is actually cheaper. Or with limitations on working hours, people are poorer but they do have to work less which is the point. Every socialist law has an actual upside too that people actually get, even if they also pay a price for it.
The government would get revenue on the tariffs as people pay them. And in cases in which the tariff made it worth it, people would get jobs manufacturing locally. That's all good and in fact, from the pov of tax collectors and people who get those jobs, tariffs are great.
The thing is, this can't be all there's to it. There has to be a cost to this somehow, because there wasn't some technological advancement that makes the country richer, it's just extra restrictions. A law can't make everyone richer.
The cost is the additional cost of either manufacturing at home where it'd b cheaper overseas or the tariff itself. And just like costs such as labor, transport, electricity, gas, reflect on prices, so would this. Because stores don't charge whatever they want for things, but as low as they can afford to, as they are subjected to competition in a market that constantly weeds out businesses that can't keep up with the others on either price of giving customers whatever they want.