Economists like Milton Friedman would say both sides prosper by consuming from the most efficient producer of the commodity. But if the cement industry comes to Congress and says, "don't tell the beef producers but we want you to slap a tariff on cement to protect us" then we have a problem. The beef producers might have serious objection.
Now come the cement Manufacturers of America saying yes but the Chinese can produce cement so cheaply that we can't compete. The beef producers say, the Chinese cannot compete with our beef, so what?
The cement producers say, but they are cheating they are subsidizing their cement industry, they are devaluing their currency, they are using slave labor or the equivalent, they are dumping. Now the beef producers say, if you take steps against the cheating Chinese they will, justly or unjustly, impose tariffs against our beef.
Congress says, "eni mini mini mo" in private you cement manufacturers have contributed more to our campaigns therefore you win, or they conclude the other way for about the same reason.
We make these decisions either by our trade representatives or our congressmen or our Commerce Department based on many factors and few of those factors persuasive to these people are the interest of the consumer, the real facts of the matter, the overall impact on our economy.
I am not calling for us to become or even to remain the trade punching bag we have become, but I am calling for a data based approach, an acknowledgment that too often trade deals are a zero-sum game inevitably hurting one segment of our economy in order to protect another segment. The deals are struck without reference to the data, without a full airing to the public, without knowing whether it is our regulations and taxes rather than Chinese dumping that is the problem. Finally, we do not employ our resources short of tariffs, such as jawboning, litigating etc. to the full extent possible.
I applaud Trump's proposed harder line, but I fear that he might actually be serious about 35% tariffs and not using that threat merely as the opening gun in a negotiating session.
