This is not necessarily a good thing. It can easily promote monopolies in more specialised markets and can easily lead to lower quality products due to the price advantage they have over the competition
True, which is why, for the cubing example, I specified that there are currently no American cube manufacturers, so that all entrants to the market would be starting more or less from scratch.
This has shown to not be the case many times. Just because a company can employ more people domestically does not mean they will and could simply lead to companies downsizing their operations or (increasingly more frequently) try to automate as many of the processes as possible. They may also just try to put up prices to recoup losses which can lead to higher inflation and hence leave the wealth of the average citizen lower than before even if monetarily they seem better off. They could also make a lower quality product if they have such a price advantage and a much lower incentive to do R&D (See Rubik's again).
True, but for the cubing example, these new businesses would be created, which means that no Americans will lose their jobs etc. And if we had multiple competitors (but I'm uncertain of the IP laws regarding this endeavor in the first place), I think the R&D issue will sort itself out (look at The Cubicle right now).
It depends on what countries you're talking about. There are many loophole in the US and you could be quite surprised at the things which could potentially be labelled as "made in America" that wouldn't be considered as such by many people who buy such products.
I agree.
If you want to minimise waste by only getting used products, why do they have to "made in America"? Patriotism is not always a good thing either. See "Cold War" (which I think we might be heading towards again).
Yeah, these are just potential personal reasons somebody might have for not buying an new import product.
anecdotal evidence is not very reliable no matter the quantity due to confirmation bias and the echo chamber effect. Also, assembly in the country can often be just as bad due to the possibility of where the pieces can from (which could be all over the world which is bad for the environment) and it can be even harder to know the conditions of the people who made it.
This is the only thing you wrote that I partially disagree with, as long as you try your best to minimize the confirmation bias (keep a tally of how long things last, quantitatively how well they work, etc.). If you can assure that, I believe anecdotal evidence actually more usefully/accurately captures personal usage of products than statistics or "facts".
In other words, the way YOU use a product is different from the way that everyone else does. So for example, if you are bicyclist, and you notice that every time you install Brand A shocks, they wear out really fast because of the way you hop curbs or go down stairs, but when you installed Brand B shocks, which seem to have a much longer fatigue life but aren't as comfortable, they last longer. That is more useful information to you (and your friends who have similar biking habits) than whatever statistics that these companies put out on their website about "high speed damping" or "spring weight" or "sag". The thing about anecdotal evidence is that it allows you to come to these conclusions about which product to buy WITHOUT any quantitative comparison.
With regards to cubing - everyone has their own personal cubing styles. I know that whenever most people do a solve on my Alpha V, they appear visibly disgusted (lol). They don't like the clicky feel. They hate the turning accuracy required. And they are disappointed that it can only cut ~35 degrees. However, there was one guy who actually offered me money for my modded AV, because he was used to using a tight Moyu LiYing (?) which I believe has a very similar size and feel. The inverse would also be true. The anecdotal evidence from a friend that would have told me the Moyu LiYing felt like the AV would have been more useful information to me than the number of stars on the review on The Cubicle.
Or take algorithms for example. Many people learn certain PLL cases (J perm/N perm) that they feel are faster than more efficient cases. Or people learn extremely long Y-perms because they are a combination of OLLs they already know. In all of these cases, there are more important things than the statistical evidence.
Why do people watch unboxing videos? Why don't they just read the technical specifications from the manufacturer? Why do reviewers do first turns instead of taking a spring-scale and measuring the force to turn each layer? Why do Youcubers compare cube sizes and weights to the Dayan Zhanchi instead of reading values off calipers or a scale?