President Trump is not shy about getting involved in the economy. What are the limits of such interventions?

Recently, I wrote an article touching on the destructive effects of offshoring America’s industrial and manufacturing capabilities. President Trump has made a major point of getting factories working again in the United States and has used his personal persuasion, taxes, and tariffs to get production back in the United States. It seemed clear that having manufacturing in the U.S. had multiple advantages: healthy communities of well-paid workers, know-how residing in the U.S., and an alternative to college, where a person could make a good living and learn valuable skills.

The comments were mostly positive regarding the president’s efforts. One reader noted that a friend told him that at their firm, they needed to reverse-engineer their own products, as there is nobody still around who actually designed and made the originals. Having know-how and critical materials like weapons and drugs made in the U.S. seemed like a no-brainer. But not everyone agreed. There were those who argued that if offshoring of production meant cheaper products and higher corporate profits, then that is the way to go. They argued that the market knows best and that attempts to bring production back to the U.S. would only strengthen corrupt unions and lead to higher-priced products for consumers.

I was thinking about the two sides of this argument as Donald Trump once again showed his willingness to tinker with markets for a greater good. The first topic was defense. Pete Hegseth wants more and faster production of America’s war material. The amount of bombs, missiles, and interceptors potentially needed in a future conflict could empty out the arsenal in no time. The president told defense contractors to stop paying dividends and executing stock buybacks until they had gotten their production rates significantly improved. Lockheed Martin’s stock fell nearly 5........

© Townhall