> But I think it fails to grasp the political and economical reality. If the US restricts importations, it harms itself as well as it harms the would-be exporter.

It's quite ironic that this is the US we're talking about and that the US gained so much from protectionism. Abraham Lincoln remarked, “Give us a protective tariff and we will have the greatest nation on earth.” The US was born, after its independence, in protectionism. Through protectionism, the US was able to establish a very impressive manufacturing base in almost every sector of the economy.

The US can drop all tariffs on imports to zero if it wants. Have you considered why it doesn't? If free imports really benefited the US in the way you're claiming they do, why would the US so aggressively seek trade deals with other nations?

The only reason to engage in trade deals is to be able to gain regulatory influence of other countries and set mutual tariffs. It is in the US interest to make these tariffs lower for things they are net exporters of and higher for things they are net importers of (because if you're manufacturing, the raw materials generally cost less than the cost of the imported raw materials and so a larger tariff on a smaller value is better than a larger tariff on the larger value)

Huge multilateral trade deals, the kind the US has been pushing, rely on the fact that they are the biggest single party and that the other signatories have a diversity of exports and imports. This is what makes Trump's bilateral approach slightly amusing: a bilateral trade deal with America First stamped on it seems like it would be a harder sell than the multilateral trade deal negotiated by the US as the largest single entity.

It makes it easier to sell to the people in those countries that their politicians have signed away their power to choose a government that has the power to introduce nice things like an efficient (i.e. socialized) healthcare system . Because the trade agreement will explicitly forbid this in order to open up the healthcare market to all the signatories.

> The idea that the US gains economic advantage by telling other countries to be open and remaining closed is just false. Its like a business man telling other business men that paying good wages is the way to retain employees and then he pays below market: he harms himself with the hypocrisy.

That's a poor analogy and as hard as I try I really can't see the mapping. In this analogy the businessmen are countries. The workers are what, the citizens? The factories? That makes no sense. Each party wants their factories to make money, of course. Are the wages taxes? Because the state taxes people. Reflecting the analogy back, is the US saying "cut taxes, cut the services for workers" whilst hypocritically turning into a social democracy?

But I like the businessmen analogy. We can say that one represents an entirely fictional Fortune 100 company (I'm sure none would behave this way) and another a tiny little manufacturer that is on the brink of going under. The Fortune 100 company uses its leverage to suggest it will give the smaller manufacturer a huge order subject to it giving it a free sample run or such of a bespoke part. The smaller manufacturer would never entertain such terms for any other customer in ordinary circumstances, but this contract would save it. So it bites, takes a hit and gets accelerated under. Then the Fortune 100 company buys it at a knock-down price when it's no longer a going concern.

The US wants imports, but not of things that directly compete with US manufacturing. Things have gone a little wrong, because self-interest has led to the moving of production to the plundered world and has led to the perception amongst some people that the main thing the US has been exporting is jobs.