It's not the business of the federal government to encourage or discourage investment in an industry. When it does subsidize investment, it often comes with strings attached that don't help the industry in the long run.
- subsidize farmers so consumers have cheaper groceriess
- help fund public schools so education is less limited by socioeconomic status
- fund science to advance the future
- offer tax credits to encourage adopting environentally-friendly technology
- apply taxes to disincenivize bad habits (e.g. tobacco)
So I'm not sure where you're coming at with this angle. That's government's greatest effect on society.
> imposing tariffs to protect industries.
Trump is doing it wrong and recklessly, so no disagreement in reality
But there are smart tactics for this short term inefficiency that can cause long term competitiveness. You can apply a high tarriff if you trust that domestic competition can catch up in a few years so you don't lose your own market to overseas competition. Long term, encouraging domestic stimulation is much better and more reliable than relying on foreign products for consumption. Especially essentials.
We do a lot of corrupt/wrong subsidizing in this country but that doesn't mean throw the baby out with the bathwater.
If I had a magic wand we'd still have tariffs and subsidize critical infrastructure and expertise - for example I find it very surprising that we don't make sure we always have wartime level of doctors and farmers trained and ready.