“Do you really think a U.S. manufacturer would sell it for less than $119.99?”
Depends on how bad they want to dominate the market- if the domestic manufacturers sell for a lower price, they can make up for it in volume and soon put the foreign producers out of the domestic market altogether since demand will accrue to the lower price.
That's basically what happened in the early 2000s when the U.S. imposed a tariff on Canadian softwood lumber. With the tariff in place, the big Canadian lumber producers changed their operations to run more efficiently, so they were still able to sell lumber cheaper than their U.S. competitors even with the tariff in place.
As is often the case, a tariff ends up simply protecting a domestic industry that is too outdated or lazy to compete on its own.
That is how all the other countries play the game. We need to learn how to play and win for once.
Uhhh, tell me how that has worked for the sugar industry. In fact, Archer Daniels Midland has become an agricultural giant (and the primary force behind big-ag political payoffs and anti-competitive FDA regulations) because the tariff on sugar killed domestic sugar production, making the much less health high-fructose corn syrup the primary ingredient in many products (like soft drinks) that originally contained sugar. Far from "saving" sugar, high tariffs killed it.
The problem most anti-free trade folks have is that reality doesn't obey simple black-and-white principles. Sometimes results are mixed, or the same thing that works one place is a disaster in another.
One thing's for sure, I hope you don't "teach" economics....