[ClearCase_guy]

The United States has (largely) decided that tariffs are a bad thing. Many people blame the Depression on the Smoot-Hawley tariff. I think that grossly over-states the matter, but it has given tariffs a bad name. Tariffs improperly protect failing domestic businesses, and tariffs improperly drive up the cost of goods which our consumers wish to buy.

But how are corporate subsidies any different? I would note that the Constitution talks about tariffs, but does not seem to drop any hints that taxpayers' money should be used to benefit certain businesses over other businesses.

I'm not 100% opposed to taiffs. I think they have their place. But I am opposed to subsidies.

Electric vehicles would find no welcome in the marketplace if the government did not heavily subsidize them. It's just a bad business.

[Strk321]

“I’m not 100% opposed to taiffs. I think they have their place. But I am opposed to subsidies.”

Tariffs are best used as a temporary measure to help an ailing industry. As an example, the Voluntary Import Restraint Act was passed in 1981 on imports of Japanese cars. In addition, a 25% tariff was put on all imported trucks and a 3% tariff on imported cars. By 1985, the American auto industry was healthy again, the VIR was no longer needed, and it was thus repealed.

However, the above-mentioned tariffs still exist. Thus, Japanese SUVs like the Toyota Land Cruiser never sold well due to being substantially more expensive than their American competition.