Yes --- the obvious problem is that virtually everyone in the USA is a consumer of foreign products --- including domestic manufacturers and workers.

In other words, virtually everyone will pay more. The only real winner is government which gets a new income stream.

Simple minded solutions for simple minded folks.

yes, baby boomers lived well, but that was a different world and a different economy. and that analogy fits really well because i think that's where trumps appeal lies, "let's get back to how the boomer generation lived (Make America Great Again)" but the reality of the present is that the nation and the world have moved on from there. to go back would require a feat of economics that i'm not sure is survivable.

To go back would require a destruction of the rest of the world's manufacturing capability, like what happened during WWII.

Boomers refuse to admit how much the destruction caused by WWII made their lives better.

i dont believe it’s a deliberate stance. I think there’s a human tendency to do the best you can in the moment that you have, and then reflect on that with some fondness.

The baby boomers lived well, before so many industries and jobs were offshored.

And before labor unions were suppressed ... and before executives started consuming almost all the increases in productivity ... and before the education system produced a mindless generation that can't think for themselves.

good point on executive salaries.

In other words, the Boomers lived well until the Boomers screwed it all up. Now they're whining about the mess they made for the rest of us to deal with.

Just whining wouldn't be much of a problem.

The problem is they think they have found a simple minded shortcut back to the good ole days.

The reality is you can never go back and trying what looks like a shortcut will only make things even worse.

I'm not an economist but I think that's true if there is enough domestic competition for foreign products. If a majority of things the average consumer in the US buys are foreign made then the tariffs would hurt more than help, at least that's what makes sense to me.

> During his current campaign, the GOP candidate and 45th president has promised to impose massive tariffs of 10 to 20% on goods from all countries plus a special 60% rate for those from China

If you work for one of the many, many American companies that makes stuff solely from inputs from America, which themselves are American all the way down, then sure, might be good (provided you only buy American stuff). If you work for an American company which needs to buy stuff (surely there are very few of those), then, well, not so great.

And tariffs tend to breed retaliatory tariffs.

Realistically the only way heavy protectionism can work (for some value of ‘work’; the quality of goods in such countries tends to be very low due to lack of competition) is if you’re verging on an autarky. This is, well, something that is generally imposed on countries, not something that they opt for themselves because it sounds nice.

Depends on where the worker is in the supply chain. For example:

https://www.cato.org/blog/how-american-steel-protectionism-h...

"Numerous economic analyses have shown that these measures raise domestic steel prices and harm steel-consuming U.S. manufacturers, including by disadvantaging them against foreign competitors with access to lower-cost (less-tariffed) steel inputs."

I suppose there's something to the argument that steel is a security priority and protecting it is worth some cost, but there is definitely a cost.