[Still Thinking]

Even if we stipulate that tariffs are paid by the consumer, they stimulate wages for the consumers with jobs, (”the consumers that matter”) by an amount greater than what they lose to tariffs.

Yes, totally unrestricted free trade is more efficient than trade with barriers, BUT you have to maintain a manufacturing base for strategic products, AND trade with bilateral barriers is still more beneficial than trade with asymmetric barriers.

So even if the Chinese/whomever don’t cave and remove their own trade barriers, the US is still better off for having them than not having them.

[Mariner]

“Yes, totally unrestricted free trade is more efficient than trade with barriers”

Smithsonian Free Trade has never existed in the history of the world.

How can on adduce it is more efficient?

Mercantilism has always been the force of trade between nations. Practice it or cease to exist.

[Svartalfiar]

Yes, totally unrestricted free trade is more efficient than trade with barriers, BUT you have to maintain a manufacturing base for strategic products, AND trade with bilateral barriers is still more beneficial than trade with asymmetric barriers.

Unrestricted free trade only works when both entities have a fairly even playing field. Corporate subsidies, heavy/lack of regulations, varied cost of living, all of these can make that free trade very one-sided, and not really 'free'.