That's the larger point here. We should be able to hold two different concepts in our minds when we describe the outcome. Yes, all things being equal tariffs and interventions create economic inefficiency. That is in my view, a rational first principle. We would prescribe actions based on that belief.

*As a redundant disclaimer for HN, that belief would put me in opposition to Trump's policies.

However when describing the outcome all things are not equal. We shouldn't fall into the trap of an appeal to utopia.

Selling into the US presents advantages on economies of scale. Overseas dollar denominated debt drives dollar demand. These factors affect decisions for producers selling into the US market.

The specific pricing data is subject to cherry picking and politicalization. Generally it is a bit strange to see the illiberal left taking exception with Trump's illiberal interventionism. You get the sense that if the interventions were rationalized by a different actor or for a different reason, the statistics would be spun in the other direction. This feels inconsistent and hypocritical.

The other key point is that the tariff doom prophesies haven't yet come to pass. Perhaps the doomsaying was merely more political bloviation? It would fit with the pattern of inconsistency.