I was having a similar discussion the other day, the problem with this line of reasoning is that it completely ignores market economics (from what I can see, I started skimming and couldn't find any references).
There is only so high a price the market will bear, and Apple currently makes a significant profit on the sale of their devices. There will be an equilibrium point where Apple (or any other device manufacturer) will figure out what they need to do to make a device that gives them the profit they want and gives customers the devices they want.
Apple at this point could probably cut gorilla glass out. How often do you see an iPhone not in a case with a screen protector, so that could save them a bit. But of course then Corning would figure out a way to be more competitive on price, so maybe that gets back in.
I don't expect a blog post to go into depth into how Apple or anybody else may shape their future products to fit a new reality, and I'm also not suggesting that either Trump or Sanders are taking the correct path.
I just think it is too simplistic to say product will be so much more expensive if we removed X or Y trade partner.
Let's say there was a significant tax on goods coming in from China. Wouldn't that just mean less cheap useless crap being purchased by people who can't afford it anyway?
