Is it not an American's choice whether to deal with these markets or not? If other countries want to waste their money on tariffs, why would I care? Sure, I'd like to see them lower their tariffs as well because that will ease things on the U.S. in the short-term, but in the long-term it won't really matter as long as our side isn't wasting its money. But then, NAFTA removed these tariffs on the other side, and you are still opposed to that. So that's just a red herring argument on your part, obviously.
2) we should force our over-taxed and over-regulated industries to compete - without benefit of some combination of tax relief and/or tariffs - with heavily subsidized foreign competition that can hire labor at a fraction of US labor costs
I'm for lowering taxes and restrictive regulations as well. Raising tariffs to counter taxes and regulations? That makes no sense at all. That's like trying to cure your headache by banging your head on the wall even harder.
3) that because of the cheap working conditions, we should allow America's manufacturing base to move offshore, thereby adding to the unemployment rolls here;
In the long-term, the money saved will more than provide for the jobs lost in the very near-term. Always has and always will. Or, we can follow your idea and be like Japan with its banks: just stuck in a terrible situation because we're too scared to do the right thing and let the markets operate.
The problem here is that all your questions are loaded with blatently incorrect economic assumptions. I could answer them forever but you will always have new fears and new worries. Japan one day, Mexico the next, then China, then someone else in a few years, and on and on and on... Luckily the U.S. is still the freest market in the world, despite our politicians having to go along with the bad economics of "the little man" in order to get reelected. So unlike you, I'm not really worried about things until that changes. The economic policies of China, Japan, the EU, and South America (apart from Chile) insure that we will continue to dominate as we have for the past couple centuries. Now, if China ever decides to open its market up to unrestricted free trade, well then I'd be worried. Its funny because all the things the paleos yell at China about (not floating the yuan, subsidizing industry, etc.) are all the reasons that they should rest easy in knowing that China will continue to lag behind the U.S. economically. Only a group that has such faith in Marxist economic policies would be worry about losing to China because of their Marxist economic policies (many of which they have abandoned, leading to their increasing economic success).
What choice do Americans have if there are no more domestic producers because of the predatory trade practices?
All NAFTA did was make Americans part of a globalist organization whose goals are to re-distribute wealth, a la socialism. You know, from each according to his ability to each according to his needs. Which means the US gets screwed. Socialism in action.
I'm for lowering taxes and restrictive regulations as well.
We agree here, as well as doing what we can to ease up the impact of the unions.
Raising tariffs to counter taxes and regulations?
No no no no. You raise them to force the OTHER guys to pay them, or lower their own tariffs and play fair.
One of two things will happen: either they will lower their own tariffs, or producers here will rise up to meet demand (or an equitable combination). In the long run, the consumer will come out ahead anyway, and the economic might of the US is secured.
It's using our own economic might to force change.
Right now, there is nothing forcing the other guys to play fair, so it is unprofitable for domestic producers to try to meet the demand. Yes, consumers are coming ahead for now, but it can't last.
And the impacts on the consumer should be a benefit of, not a justification for, a policy. In the long-term, the money saved will more than provide for the jobs lost in the very near-term. Always has and always will.
Economically, that may be true, though I'm not convinced. For the time, I'll not address it.
But, and this is important, and it is something that the Founding Fathers knew, YOU CANNOT BASE A TRADE POLICY ON THE RIGHT OF THE CONSUME TO BUY CHEAP STUFF.
You have to have a means of protecting vital industries; you have to have a means of recovering a market once it is lost. You have to have a means of retaliating against predatory trade practices. How would you propose we do this?
You also haven't addressed the protectionist history of the US - which made us the most profitable nation, biggest exporter, and mightiest economic power on earth - why Kennedy suddenlt decided that 180 years of experience should be tossed, and that all those funny guys in wigs didn't know what they were talking about.