[1rudeboy]

The "amorphous protection" you so easily dismiss is, in fact, the general economic well-being of the nation. The relationship is more abstract than the shared fence, but no less real. All of which you realize perfectly well.

Easily dismiss? I recognize that a targeted tariff, for example, benefits the targeted industry or firm. Why do you so easily dismiss that the same tariff has a cost borne by the same folks you are "protecting?" Thats why I refer to the "protection" as amorphous--ask a confectioner what he thinks of sugar tariffs. Do you honestly believe he will simply shrug his shoulders and claim, "it's for the greater good?"

[neutrino]

Why do you so easily dismiss that the same tariff has a cost borne by the same folks you are "protecting?"

I don't dismiss it at all. I regard it as cost effective.

Also, I'm more interested in general tariff increases than piecemeal targetted tariffs.