the first point is semantic, but sure. In effect a tariff functions as a subsidy for domestic companies. If it's a net income or expense is kind of irrelevant and matter of taxation or putting the expense on consumers...

To the second point... it's so vague to be meaningless. What you're advocating is basically mercantilism - which is widely seen as ineffective and counterproductive since.. the 19th century. "unexpected ways“ .. is it like the law of gravity and always going to hold? Probably not. But when you are talking about blocking international trade across whole sectors of the economy then it seems like a valid simplification. If you want to argue mercantilism is going to be a net benefit to the domestic economy then the onus is on the advocate of the outdated theory. All past historic experience points to the opposite and to the development of a stagnant backwards economy

Mercantilism is a top-down approach, I was never promoting that. My earlier comments specifically called out what may be possible if consumers prioritized domestic products, the government only came into the conversation when you raised concerns over subsidies.

With regards to subsidies and tariffs I disagree the distinction is semantic and unimportant, though it likely is irrelevant here since I started with the concept of a change in demand at the consumer level.