SO punishing people for wanting to buy goods not available in the US (or at a better price) is representing "the People" better? Let me ask you: are you a union man? Your arguments sound familiar.
As you point out, America can't compete on cheap crap that sells for $1 at Walmart. We have much better products than China etc, but due to labour costs, punitive taxes, idiotic regulations etc the costs are so much higher as to be uncompetitive. Eliminate all the punitive taxes and regulations, and America can produce a product that is x2 as good as China without being x20 as expensive.
People often conveniently ignore the massive difference between US labor cost versus some foreign labor. I read that you didn't, just stating that many people like to be intentionally obtuse because they dont want a pay cut. Over regulation has its fair share of the blame, I just find it annoying.
The US already tried raising tariffs to help American business. It doesn't work, because if a company is efficient, then it doesn't need a handout. If it isn't efficient, it doesn't deserve one.
BTW raising import tariffs is a handout if it costs the government more in lost productivity that is gained by the tariff.
Look at the imported steel slab tariff increase of the early '00s. It was to help American steel companies modernize, and in place temporarily. Instead of modernizing (presumably to increase competitiveness) the major American steel companies gave put pay increases. They assumed the tariff was going to be perpetually renewed, and it wasn't.
Bottom line: free markets work. Tariffs are only good to replace income taxes with a consumption tax.
Jimmy dean:
I don't think import differences would be necessarily a problem. If the Japanese/whatever manufacturers want to do business here they still have to compete. That means taking a loss here, and raising prices at home to make for the loss, or operating more efficiently than American companies. This forces others to be more efficient and will lower the price of all cars sold in America. Look at the changes Ford has made.
To the OP:
It is human nature to assume that cause and effect relationships are linear. Unfortunately, this is hardly ever true. I admit a certain lack of expertise in macro economics; however I understand math. If something is good in small amount, we can rarely draw conclusions to it effect in a greater amount.
For example, IIRC cobalt is absolutely necessary for human survival. With out small amounts of it we can't make enzymes necessary for life. However, it becomes very toxic in large amounts because of the equilibrium shift of a complex set of biochemical reaction mechanisms.
I often wonder if government spending is similar. Necessary for economic prosperity in small amounts, toxic in large amounts.
What do you define as small and large? I have no idea, but I am pretty sure spending 13/14 trillion is quite toxic in the long run.