You seem to equate “planned economies” with the subject of economics and those who have a reasonable grasp of economics.
Although many, probably most, economists are Leftist Keynesian, that doesn’t negate or exclude the reality of Free Market Economics, which is the successful use of the laws of economics, nor does it make tariffs anything more than what it is - a palliative, not a curative, measure, fooling a lot of people and makes them feel good because tariffs appear to be doing something about the underlying problems but in actuality don’t.
Many try to make the free market more mysterious than it already is - unknown and unknowable. Those people don’t really know what they are talking about IMO. The free market is simply the voluntary cooperation between buyers and sellers in the openly competitive market free from government interference. The free market creates wealth, not just for the direct participants but via John Adam’s “invisible hand” creates wealth in the aggregate.
Secondly, U.S. tariffs is a tax on goods sold in the U.S. How is that not U.S. consumers not paying for U.S. tariffs?
"Economics" is not the economy. "Economics" is the study of the economy, with models, theories, and predictions that seek to model the economy. As with any other intellectual pursuit, it's not for the intellectually lazy...IE, anyone who doesn't understand the limitations of economics.
That includes "those who have a 'reasonable' grasp of economics."
Economics, like any model, is only as good as the quality of the model...and the application. It can be very good, or very bad. It's not the end of understanding the economy, but merely the start.
How is it, you ask, that US consumers are not paying for the tariffs? They must be, you say, because that's what the model says...regardless of the real world results.
Except that there are assumptions behind the model, sometimes valid, sometimes not. Do you have any idea what they are, in this case?
I'll give you a hint..."Static Analysis."