> because doing otherwise would cost too much do you know how much tariffs would need to be raised to even make this viable? and this falls under a fallacy. unless the product is exclusively sold in the us, why would these suppliers bother to expand in the us alone when they have the rest of the world? sure their profits will be slightly harmed, but people will still have no choice but to buy these things at a premium > people in america how many people in america are willing to take on a labor intensive job that may actually not pay that well? > probably and if not the market would expand to meet the shortage no, they would instead buy foreign goods because theres not enough local supply. simple economics, mutt. > partially by being cheaper to buy thanks to tariffs how will tariffs magically make local stuff cheaper unless they are used to subsidize them? > for many things probably yes all? > there'd be no surge in supply chains just a restructuring you have no idea what you are talking about > the only reason why not is if certain governmental restrictions make that impossible no, its mainly the costs. one of the main factors for the decline of the rust belt was because stuff was just cheaper and faster to manufacture abroad. > no there would be no point but that's easily solved with higher tariffs higher tariffs will just make things more expensive without addressing the affordability of local stuff > because the u.s. is a huge market that it would be very painful to forsake it is but the us is just a fraction of the world population. unless the tariffs are insanely high, i dont think it will hurt profits too much. as a very basic example, i dont think the us manufacture any cell phones, so people who need a new cell phone would likely have to wage another month to get it, or just go credit. you fall into the same overly-idealistic pitfalls i see every tariff-proponent fall into.
Norway