There is one part of "the Bear's" analysis that just does not compute for me:
Quote
Today, however, globalization has gone so far that US self-reliance would be economically impossible except at inordinate cost. All kinds of global supply chains and product relationships would have to be unwound, as the US consumer reverted to buying sweatshirts made in North Carolina rather than China or Vietnam. Emerging market manufacturing capabilities would not be lost, and emerging market living standards not much affected. Thus, the main effect of US protectionism would be to reduce US living standards still further.
It seems to me that he is making a couple of assumptions here that are unfounded. First, that the only way to stem the flow of capital away from the US is through "protectionism", and second, that the future American will suffer economic hardship due to the lack of foreign made goods at the low end of the cost continuum - offering as an example textiles.

It seems to me that much greater suffering would come about due to the lack of foreign made goods at the high end of the cost continuum, which would include items like electronic goods and automobiles. And it further seems to me that, rather than stemming flow of capital to foreign lands, a more favorable outcome would be developing new industries here in the US that would generate more capital flow, the bulk of which would stay in the US.

I think that's what the President Elect's economic policy is leading toward, and am therefore more optimistic than the Bear, or our colleague numan.

Steve
Give us the wisdom to teach our children to love,
to respect and be kind to one another,
so that we may grow with peace in mind.
(Native American prayer)