>So would travel agents, real estate agents and car dealerships.
Yes, but these people also provide good services. I think car dealerships might be the best bad example out of these because car manufacturers don't deal directly with customers. However, I think the fact is that the manufacturers who set it up like this don't want to deal with customers, and they establish dealerships that agree to a certain quality of service that the manufacturer wants associated with their name. Car dealers are explicitly authorized to negotiate prices with customers, which can go either above or below MSRP. If the manufacturer was selling directly to you, you'd probably be stuck with ONE price which might not be the best one. All three of the cases I quoted here can be viewed as a form of optional delegation that usually benefits the producer, the consumer, or both.
If it can be proven that there is a better way to allocate resources (especially on a micro scale), that way should not be categorically banned. But at the international scale especially, you need to be careful.
>Just because a change in allocation of resources or production would end businesses / jobs doesn't necessarily make it a bad thing.
Yes a handful of unimportant ones here and there doesn't have to be so bad. But if strategically important businesses and jobs are eliminated in an allegedly sovereign region, that is usually a bad thing (proportional to the size of the region). If too many of the less important jobs in a region are eliminated or challenged, that puts stress on the people which is also a bad thing.
>I'm not arguing whether this specific policy is good or bad, but mainly that the argument don't do it because "it would cost jobs somewhere" doesn't mean something is a bad policy. Just about every change in the economy costs jobs somewhere. The question is: Does it create more jobs (or higher standard of living) in other places to make up for it?
I think this question only makes sense if you're talking about a relatively closed, cohesive system like a sovereign country. "Higher standard of living" is not the only metric that needs to be optimized (at least as it is commonly defined). We need to have a resilient country to the extent that we can. That might mean paying extra costs to support our native businesses, or accepting somewhat worse products in some cases. For example, you personally could cut or reduce most of your insurance and stop saving for retirement. That would put more money in your pocket every month that you could use to buy cool stuff. That might be interpreted as a higher standard of living. But is it wise? This is not far from what we have done on a national scale, driven by globalist policies and profiteering.