By the way, he really isn't crazy. The rationale for these taxes is very sensible, and he explained it too. Other countries that manufacture more cheaply attract American factories to them, and U.S. citizens are left without a livelihood. Also, in many cases cheap production is based on cheap labor without worker protections and without environmental standards, and the taxes balance that out and protect the American labor market and employment. Very sensible.

One of the main points in Trump's campaign was the cost of living and inflation. And very much not a shortage of jobs. This move will send the cost of living through the roof.

That's only one of the points. The justification for this step was what I said. When there are two conflicting goals, you always have to balance between them. Focusing on the cost of living comes at the expense of employment, and vice versa. So your criticism is populist.
Even regarding the cost of living, the claim is that after the others give in, that too will work itself out. His claim is that you need to grit your teeth in the short term for the sake of achievements in the long term. Will he succeed? We'll wait and see.

A. How do you know there's any shortage of jobs at all? As far as I know there are enough jobs in the United States, especially since most Americans aren't interested in working in factories.
B. Even if it gives a tiny bit more work, the damage to the cost of living and to the rest of the world is enormous, to a degree that simply isn't worth it. The man is undoubtedly deranged.

Oh, so why didn't you say so? Now I'm convinced. Who could stand up to such well-founded arguments?! Really, a style of discourse typical of the obtuseness of today's conversation around Trump or Bibi. Good luck to you.
If at some point you actually feel like looking into the issue and not just repeatedly hurling your a priori positions, you should listen to people who understand the subject. It could definitely help. If you want, just this morning I heard an interview with the head of our Manufacturers Association on exactly this topic, on the Rina and Akiva program at around 8:15 or a bit later. See here: https://www.kan.org.il/content/kan/kan-b/p-10000/
On today's date (3.4).

Omer Moav addresses this claim here too and explains why it isn't correct:

https://www.osimhistoria.com/osim-heshbon/ep132

He explains, among other things, that exposure to imports doesn't destroy jobs overall. That is, it destroys certain jobs and increases other jobs in which the country has a comparative advantage.

All the links in the chain stem from GDP—that's the starting point. To say that increasing GDP and reducing imports will hurt the citizen's pocket *in the long run*, you need to present strong arguments. Not in every industry should a country prioritize local production, but almost always it should.

It somewhat reminds me of the old argument between socialism and capitalism. Even when you turn a socialist country into a capitalist one, the economy takes a painful hit (and in a socialist country it's a sick economy anyway); people may go hungry in the first months. But the idea is that once the market is free, people go out to work, someone opens a bakery (which in capitalism is natural, and under socialism almost impossible), it grows, he employs workers, and so on—and that way the economy recovers and gets healthy.

To remove any doubt, I think Trump is no great genius and sometimes he seems like an idiot. But he isn't surrounded by idiots, and he didn't invent his economic doctrine. For now, I'm satisfied with his policy on most issues.

Only a blind person can't see that China has taken over every field of manufacturing except high-tech, and high-tech too has begun to crawl there.
Only a fool (or a leftist) would do nothing about it.

In my opinion, imposing tariffs can also be interpreted—especially toward China—as collecting payment for the R&D that costs developers an enormous amount of money, mainly in the U.S., and which the Chinese, as has always been their way, steal and don't pay for as they should. If only for that reason, the tariffs are justified.
The rise in product prices in the U.S. as a result will probably be offset in another way by local production, which from now on will be more worthwhile, and then it too will become relatively cheaper.

I'm really surprised at you, Michi. I thought you had some knowledge of economics.

Eli, admittedly I lack knowledge in economics,
but it sounds like Trump's imposition of tariffs is very right in principle for the U.S.
This technique doesn't intervene in the source countries at all. As far as they're concerned, those countries can impose tariffs or not impose tariffs on goods. The only thing that interests them is that they shouldn't earn less than what they're paying, otherwise they're supposedly losing money to the competing country.

This isn't a tariff war but the desire to strengthen the American economy so that it will be at least equal to the competitor.

Yaakov,
I agree with you. The new policy is explicitly trying to be a model of an eye for an eye.
But fortunately for us, the U.S. economy is immeasurably stronger than any competing economy, so that's not their concern. Trump is simply saying (together with a majority of Americans), "It's true that we're the strongest, but we want even more; we don't owe anything to the global economy and we're tired of financing it."
The U.S. is the rich patron of the world, and Americans are tired of it.
Europe is the Haredim of the world, and they live off the U.S. If they're left to manage on their own, the European economy collapses instantly. That was also one of the main reasons for Brexit.
Add to that the trade war with China, and these steps are practically called for.
You can see that the U.S. is still being very generous with its tariffs (what an evil, wicked Trump. Just a bully! Daring to tax countries at a rate of a quarter or a third of the rate they impose on the U.S.)

https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=10237143046861377&id=1400792089

Rabbi Michi,
Mr. Sh actually raised substantive arguments. The consensus in economic research is that tariffs harm the economy, except in cases of unemployment, where the different schools are divided. Exactly as Mr. Sh said, that imports don't harm the U.S. if they don't cause unemployment there (and there is no unemployment in the U.S.).
In addition, the chairman of the Manufacturers Association doesn't engage in research on international trade, so I didn't understand why you brought his interview as an example of a high-level discussion. He simply gives mistaken arguments there out of ignorance.
Omer Moav's podcast, by contrast, is very highly recommended.

I don't have time to respond to Omer Moav's points themselves. But it's a bit pointless to quote him; his positions are known. He supports a global free market, he's also against encouraging foreign capital investment in Israel, he's against protectionism. Trump didn't invent anything new; this is a known economic approach, and Omer has explicitly opposed it forever. He has never supported protecting local industry.
Besides that, and with all due respect, he uses cheap demagoguery to make Trump's position look ridiculous, and that really makes me despise the man. A public that doesn't know there are two broad economic doctrines is listening to you, and you present one with contempt as if it isn't relevant to any serious discussion. Low and populist.

Well… actually no.
Protectionism is not a broad approach. There is no serious academic research that supports protectionism. Even though economic research contains different schools and different approaches, in this case everyone simply agrees that free trade is good.
And by the way, Omer Moav really is contemptuous and belligerent, and it's a shame that's the case.

https://geekonomy.net/category/%D7%A4%D7%A8%D7%A7%D7%99%D7%9D/?fbclid=IwY2xjawJeStFleHRuA2FlbQIxMQABHvGsd3NH3_hBPFsW8x2eY5gkLzEBjHAH9fo1j0xw5GHuOlyV2aibvOGT2lYx_aem_ksTS1HF1sdFtngJ166gXyg

I had a lot to say, but I preferred to leave the discussion, partly because it turned into links to statements by outspoken opponents of the move. And also because in any case I wasn't sure the moves were right, only that there was logic to them. Something very relevant has already happened:
Jensen Huang, CEO of Nvidia (the largest chip manufacturer in the world), announced the transfer of chip development to the U.S. with an investment of half a trillion dollars. As is known, the chip powerhouse is Taiwan, and such a move would be extremely dramatic in bringing the industry back to the U.S. Nvidia's move is a clear result of the tariffs.

There's a crazy media pile-on against the tariffs that makes you doubt your own sanity. But there is logic in tariffs, and only time will tell whether they really achieved their goals. And it seems they did.