Embargos are a (light-weight) act of war. And like most acts of war, they hurt the civilian population more than they hurt the leadership.
Protectionist trade policies to attempt to balance a huge trade deficit is just economic policy. Free trade is all well and good when both partners are trading freely, but China is not doing that. China uses forced-low labor costs, low quality standards, low environmental standards, and import quotas to ensure they come out way ahead on the balance of trade. This hurts US businesses who can't compete with Chinese companies prices because they have to adhere to much higher standards/costs.
Simply adding tariffs to Chinese imports wouldn't be enough though; while that would bring some money into the US budget, it probably wouldn't help US businesses start up to pick up the slack in imports, and US consumers would wind up footing the bill. We'd also need a reduction in taxes on businesses that produce the sort of products we import from China so we can kickstart US production. The lower taxes should lead to more US jobs and lower prices on the products, and the government shouldn't lose revenue because it'll be getting the extra tariff money. (It'll be a long time before US businesses can produce the volume of goods we import from China, even with tariffs and tax breaks in place.)
> Free trade is all well and good when both partners are trading freely, but China is not doing that.
There's no need for the other partner to trade freely to make free trade from your side advantageous to you. Have you heard of the theory of comparative advantage (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparative_advantage) that explains why this works?
"The fundamental logic of free trade can be stated a number of different ways, but one particularly useful version - the one that James Mill stated even before Ricardo - is to say that international trade is really just a production technique, a way to produce importables indirectly by first producing exportables, then exchanging them. There will be gains to be had from this technique as long as world relative prices differ from domestic opportunity costs - regardless of the source of that difference. That is, it does not matter from the point of view of the national gains from trade whether other countries have different relative prices because they have different resources, different technologies, different tastes, different labor laws, or different environmental standards. All that matters is that they be different - then we can gain from trading with them." (http://web.mit.edu/krugman/www/negot.html)
Did you read the Criticism section of the wikipedia article, which describes how the theory doesn't apply if capital flows freely (as it does) and that even when it did apply it created uneven distribution of wealth which have caused countries like China to enact policies to ensure that Comparative Advantage does not apply?
At issue here is that we're not trading goods we're good at producing for goods China is good at producing. Instead, we're trading the future earnings of US citizens for Chinese goods. That might have been ok when our debt was low and the goods were low-value, but now our debt is unsustainable and the goods are high technology which we invented and used to produce, but don't anymore. The theory was that we were becoming a 'service economy', but the Chinese don't want or need our services. We have nothing to trade with them except our future financial independence... and the future is coming very quickly.
Protectionist trade policies to attempt to balance a huge trade deficit is just economic policy. Free trade is all well and good when both partners are trading freely, but China is not doing that. China uses forced-low labor costs, low quality standards, low environmental standards, and import quotas to ensure they come out way ahead on the balance of trade. This hurts US businesses who can't compete with Chinese companies prices because they have to adhere to much higher standards/costs.
Simply adding tariffs to Chinese imports wouldn't be enough though; while that would bring some money into the US budget, it probably wouldn't help US businesses start up to pick up the slack in imports, and US consumers would wind up footing the bill. We'd also need a reduction in taxes on businesses that produce the sort of products we import from China so we can kickstart US production. The lower taxes should lead to more US jobs and lower prices on the products, and the government shouldn't lose revenue because it'll be getting the extra tariff money. (It'll be a long time before US businesses can produce the volume of goods we import from China, even with tariffs and tax breaks in place.)