[freeone3000]

Auto tariffs have kept Detroit producing automobiles despite various other entrants, while still being low enough for foreign competition.

[DiogenesKynikos]

Auto tariffs are currently keeping far less expensive - yet much more advanced - Chinese EVs out of the US market, costing American consumers thousands of dollars on every car purchase.

[phil21]

While not allowing an entire industry and supply chain to die. One of the last heavily industrial and manufacturing industries left in the US at any decent sized scale.

You need such things for national security, so it's very likely "worth it" even all the way down to the American consumer level.

Look at the shipbuilding industry if you want to see what happens to that capacity without it. Due to the lack of commercial shipbuilding in the US, we can't even keep up with building for our Navy during peacetime. If a war ever were to attrit naval forces to any meaningful degree there would be zero hope of scaling up that supply chain in a relevant timeframe.

Arguments could of course be made if the auto manufacturing industry (and it's suppliers) are useful in an actual hot war, but I think without them we'd be in even heavier dire straights in that regard.

[rsynnott]

_Just about_. After significant government bailouts.

Ultimately, this sort of protectionism tends to be expensive, and yield an inferior product.

[freeone3000]

But may still be worth it to protect a skilled domestic industry.

[simonh]

I think the same effects can be achieved using subsidies, and I do accept such interventions can have legitimate justifications.

[SideQuark]

At significant loss to the consumer. Sure a tariff can benefit a subset of people, by costing others even more.

We could also do this without tariffs by simply taking money from some group and handing it to another.

[dataflow]

Someone mentioned a week or two ago on HN that the point of the auto tariffs was national security (maintaining the industry/expertise/etc. in the US, I assume), not economic.

[lucketone]

Receiving money for free is different than money earned for work (even if subsidised).

It creates different incentives for the receiver.