@Xzi, I can agree with this argument...but when coupled with other policy ideas (decreasing regulation, increasing energy generation domestically) incentives can be persuasive for companies to manufacture domestically increasing jobs and overall economic growth. Not a fix all by any means...which I why I stressed strategically. We need to protect some of our industries to reduce our dependence on foreign trade. Despite the economy growing (which it consistently does), I would argue our economic growth is in areas that do not meet the everyday needs of Americans (food/energy). What other ideas can help address these needs?
(note: I know
@Xzi replied earlier. I want to weigh in regardless)
The problem is that Trump never coupled it with any policy ideas. It's just "when asked about economy -> reply with 'tarifs will solve everything' ". Calling him braindead certainly sounds like an insult, but it's really the best way to describe it. Or rather: he might know reality isn't as simple as he makes it out to be, but he also knows that he aims to sell it to those who know less about economy than him.
Not too long ago, he was asked about the rising cost in childcare. His response was an infamous word salad that newspapers tried to boil down to (or 'sanewash as') "tarifs will compensate for it". But Trump didn't talk of tarifs in the context you're using (using it as a method to steer toward a desired outcome, such as more local production). In fact, he never talks about tarifs as a means to an end.
Sorry...I should say 'to an ECONOMICAL end'. Aside from the earlier mentioned response to everything, I've also heard him talk as if foreign countries use USA as a sort of cash cow, and the tarifs serve therefore a sort of revenge to that perceived disadvantage.
The problem that pretty much every economist has with this action (combined with the lack of supporting policies) is that it doesn't work in the way Trump wants it to be. Supply and demand rules the world. If China sellstheir iOS chips for 100 bucks and the US raises a 10% tax on that(1), then it's apple who has to cough up 100 bucks instead of a hundred. Yes, it incentivizes apple to search for local alternatives(2), but if demand decreases Chinese companies just sell their chips elsewhere or stop production. It's really that simple, and it's baffling that nobody can get that into Trump's skull(3).
Faced with higher costs, companies using imported goods will either take the economical hit (not likely) or just raise the price for consumers (logical outcome).
Your last couple remarks are interesting as well. I can't say I know Harris's stance enough to know how much better she'll do, but the core idea is simple enough: "wealth redistribution".
The sort of capitalism that reigns supreme in the US concentrates the wealth in ever fewer hands. It benefits those on the receiving hand (Trump and Musk are clear examples) but poverises the majority. Unfortunately, the large mass is doctrinated that this system is the best for everyone, and changes in the right direction are often blocked at every corner(4).
There are enough 'other ideas'. But most are simply not feasible in US politics because "too extreme leftwing".
(1): random example here
(2): not always available, of course
(3): which leads me to believe he knows the idea is shortsighted but considers it inferior to how many people he can convince with it.
(4): to the rest of the world, Obamacare's a system that's only obvious. To this day, I see enough people trying to throw it in the bin
