There are a few situations where tariffs are beneficial:

1. To preserve strategically important domestic industries (historically: food production and mechanization industry)

2. To shield domestic industries while they're growing to take on already efficient and scaled global competitors

Benefiting labor or saving jobs is probably the stupidest use of tariffs, if one of the above isn't also in play, because it'd be more efficient just to offshore it to low COL countries and instead refocus internal labor.

The slippery slope, of course, is that industries will claim to be included in one of the above, but instead sink their tariff-protected excess profitability into shareholder/self-enrichment instead of business investment.

It'd make more sense to require domestic industries in tariff-protected sectors to invest {near tariff} percentages of their revenue in R&D and/or capital expenses (or be heavily taxed).

Otherwise the government is simply artificially inflating their profitability, at the cost of any consumers of the product.

▲

Retric 2 days ago | parent [-]

Food production isn’t some homogeneous entity, it might make sense to subsidize some level of staples but direct subsidies are more transparent and can be more easily limited. But, obviously industry doesn’t want the government feeding through to stop simply because the’ve scaled vastly past domestic consumption.

Similarly, military procurement can subsidize relevant industries without impacting the wider economy. In other words you can maintain some domestic steel production etc without impacting the cost of goods.

▲

ethbr1 2 days ago | parent [-]

I think that under-appreciates the slippery slope of political leverage. There's a reason Iowa is so hell-bent on keeping their primaries first.

Without explicitly and financially tying subsidy-fueled gains to modernization efforts, market participants begin to consider the subsidies as business as usual, plan around them, and get lazy.*

It removes a primary incentive to maintain pace with global technology improvements. Domestic industry whispers in politicians' ears that their global competitors are unfair for reasons X, Y, and Z, and they really need more subsidies to protect them.

{Benefit from politically driving new tariffs / subsidies} must never be higher than {benefit from investing in efficiency increases}.

* Lazy as measured by peak international efficiency, not work. E.g. a farmer who works their ass off manually farming is economically inefficient compared to one who mechanizes most of their work

	▲	Retric 2 days ago \| parent [-]
		That’s a big part of why it happens, but every industry wants subsidies the idealized place of “farming” in the American public’s perception make this significantly easier. That helps explain why chips, cars, airlines, banking etc get subsidized but PVC pipes don’t.