or raw materials*

Yes, It would cost more. That money would go to government and then again to public. So, what changed?

We're also supposing equal tariffs on all sides which isn't entirely the case

but even then, the diffusion of money back to the public isn't... ensured to be in beneficial manners

That is a case to explain it better. In reality,money is never lost. It comes back in some or the other manner. The only delay theoretically, is time delay.

Even if money is used in social welfare, it is in hands of another person, who will spend it. And it will come back in system

As in, you run the risk of governmental corruption in addition to funding malevolent portions of the government (depending on the type of state, surveillance against citizens, excessive militaries, law enforcement, etc)

You are talking about wrong people getting money. That is different than what I am talking about. It does not matter who has those billions of dollars. It would be spent one day or invested and would come back in system.

It won't magically disappear.

Yes, but this is a risk with tariffs

One which does not exist within an unobstructed market

The point is that does not change nation's economy. Let us say that Bill Gates earn $100 trillion because of monopoly. Then, he would spend it. The nations economy would suffer from zero effect of Bill Gates acquiring of money by unethical or even illegal means.

I'd encourage taxation on said gains, rather than outright tariffs

Perhaps... stratified tariffs, even

Just not flat tariff rates

Flat tariff rates would harm the poor more than the rich

It's why I oppose VATs

So, basically it is a form of pro-poor argument?

To some degree, yes

In addition to an argument of increased productivity, and thus general living standards

That is a myth perpetuated by free marketers. There is no theoretical argument for that.

Specialization's ability to improved productivity is well known

And that specialisation is achieved because a lot of capital is lost because home companies are destroyed by free markets

Tariffs are only beneficial when used to knock them down, or to buy votes

As humanity settled, we were able to specialize into certain fields rather than requiring everyone to hunt or gather, enabling new enterprises to arise

That is a different type of specialisation. What it has to do with free market?

It's just one example

Technological specialisation increases productivity.

I mean, autarky is just generally a poor idea

Every state has a maximum amount of production they can hypothetically achieve in each field, limited by resources, labor, capital, and so on

We're not in a post scarcity economy

It is not. What Autarky does is something like social welfare. Everyone survives, so overall quality is lower. Free market destroys weak competitors so quality is higher. But this higher quality also entails destruction of relatively poor business owners, who cannot compete with MNCs.

So, you destroy businesses today and benefit tomorrow

Equal tariffs would also produce a large amount of immediate damage as well

Imports/exports are required to sustain each state and its current quality of life

They won't. If they are imposed on nations which export more to the country putting tariffs. That is why Trump's tariffs are a success.

A success?

It's going to harm farmers in the long run

It already is, actually

Exports are going to decrease