There's a difference of applying tariffs to imported goods that are cheaper than domestically produced goods so that their prices are not sold at drastically cheaper prices then making it impossible for imports to compete.
Ideas are one thing, execution is another. Based on bad execution it's possible for the cure to be worse than the disease.
Tarifs are a powerful tool to product specific industries. When implemented properly (focused on specific industries) they can change behavior, support local jobs, increase national objectives.
Applied consistently, in a predictable way, across decades, they allow rational players to predict the future, and invest accordingly. If I can see that washing machines have a floor price I can invest in a washing machine factory.
When implemented broadly (like across all industries, globally, at random percentages) they achieve none of the above. All they achieve are higher prices. Tariffs on coffee serve no domestic goals since the US has no coffee industry.
The problem is not that Trumps ideas are bad. Voters love his policies. But he's lazy. It's easiest to just slap "10% on the world" than say 10% on lumber to protect the local lumber industry. Worse, there's no stability. The here-today-gone-tomorrow approach defeats the point. I'm not investing in a new lumber mill if those 50% tarifs will be gone by July.
So to answer the post higher up, Trump takes good ideas, but executes them badly. It's not a double-standard, it's just that he's good at talking but really, really bad at doing things. Doing hard things is hard, and he's lazy.
On the other hand he's a good grifter. No one grifts like he does. If his goal in getting elected was to enrich himself, then he's doing a great job.
TFG talks about trade debts as being ripped off, but these are only on goods, not the broader services industry the US has largely transitioned to, which if accounted for, change the numbers drastically. It also doesn't account for the vast rise in global living standards that freer trade and specialization brought. Nor do the tariffs reflect the reality of what is possible and the timelines needed to reshore.
If you import more from the US than you export, you're still seeing a 10% tariff. These things are being used by a bully to bully, nothing more, the way he ran things as a landlord. They lack coherence and strategy, and are often portrayed in conflicting terms (the are to reshore vs they are temporary negotiation tactics... hint, they are actually for extorting praise and bribes)
The only way out so far is to pay tribute, largely by American companies who don't want to pay tariffs on their imports.
More recently it seems TFG is once again dialing back the tariffs because the economic fallout is being voiced by more parties.
It's not bad just because TFG does it, but because he doesn't understand economics and many other things the leader of America ought to have some basic understanding of. It's clear he's too old for the job
The focus here on "tariffs good vs tariffs bad" is missing the point. Tools can be used in a productive way or an unproductive way. I think anyone with even a basic understanding of global economics knew what the outcome would be when he started putting out blanket tariffs for no fucking reason, and the way he did it is objectively unproductive; we will live with the damage from this action for decades.
> It’s funny how most of what I read these days boils down to, “it could be a good idea, but when trump does it it’s bad”
It could be a good idea for the right reasons and with a good implementation. Is Trump doing it for the right reasons and in with a good implementation?
* https://www.noahpinion.blog/p/when-are-tariffs-good
It's just that generally speaking, most of why they're being implemented by the US now are not valid.