> It encourages the buying of trucks from US automakers which is better for US companies, US workers, and the environment.
You've identified the winners, but you have ignored the losers!
You've identified the winners, but you have ignored the losers!
I'm also naturally more concerned about US workers than workers overseas since I want the people near me to have good paying jobs and to be able to contribute to and participate in my local economy. When people in the USA are encouraged to buy goods made in the USA, the USA is the winner. Since I live in the USA I'll happily take that win.
I really couldn't care less about US or non-US companies that want to increase their profits by polluting the environment more. Building trucks outside of the USA's more stringent environmental protections and then shipping large heavy trucks across entire oceans when they could have been made closer to their buyers wouldn't be a win for anyone but an already very wealthy few. I'm not shedding any tears for them.
We can still buy trucks made outside of the US, and plenty of Americans do. There are many Tacomas, Tundras, and Frontiers on American streets. You can even find a Honda Ridgeline or Hyundai Santa Cruz. We're not at all hurting for non-US truck options, but considering the list of winners, I'd say we do have a lot to lose.
Non-US automakers have no problem making money selling their trucks in the US market, even if they don't dominate here. If too many people in the US were being priced out of them, it wouldn't be worth it to the companies to sell their trucks here, and they wouldn't still be doing it. I don't deny that they could be making more money, and that some US consumers could be spending less.
There's certainly a philosophical argument to be made that idealistically there should be an even playing field for every automaker with no preference given to US companies, but I feel that realistically we'd be losing more than we'd gain by making that happen.