Like I said, no reputable, knowledgeable respected person has ever accused them of using false numbers. Your charge is not backed by anything except your personal opinion. If you want to cite the articles listed there and dispute the footnotes let me know. Until then your opinions are irrelevant to me.
If the latter then I would suggest that your personal philosophical beliefs have little relationship to formulating sound public policy unless you can show how they do.
And now you are getting personal again. It gets you in trouble everytime. Try not asking personal questions and just stick to the facts and you will be more adult in your approach. Further, freedom is good public policy.
I think tarrifs are taxes and should never be used to bully some people to benefit other people for political power. I don't get caught in the trap of debating the details of policies with which I disagree.
It's like saying that if the question is theft you don't want to talk about the morality of it, only the question of who benefits from the plunder.
NO person associated with teh Cato institute has ever accused tehm of using false numbers and if you define anyone who opposes their use of numbers as not being reputable, knowledegable then your charge is true. They used unreferenced numbers that are not verifiable by reasy means in support of questionable claims. This fact alone indicts them we have multiiple examples on many threads.
Clearly I advise anyone to go to teh Cato Institutes web site and see if you can find any fair treatment of opposing viewpoints see if all their numbers are sourced. The presumption is an unsoyrced number is false unless easily verifiable from public sources. Cato uses unsourced numbers taht are not easily verifiable from public sources. They have republished a study of teh Steel tariffs that does a regression analysis of only the cost side of the equation as a complete evaluation aof the Steel tariffs.
I think tarrifs are taxes and should never be used to bully some people to benefit other people for political power.
If we were limiting the "bullying" to just people in teh USA I would agree philosophically but when we are talking overall benefit of the USA then I strongly disagree. If I were just advocating tariffs on the basis of my personal philosophical or religous beliefs then I would be subject to teh same dismissal for the same reason.
I don't get caught in the trap of debating the details of policies with which I disagree. Clearly your right to refuse. And we are free to make any inference we wish from that refusal.