I get what you're trying to say but I don't think it's couched in a way that is understandable to the average person. I think a more understandable way to put it is to point out USA will be ok on the very base things like food and energy (assuming they don't piss us Canadians off further) but China has competed to a almost nothing the next few rungs up the ladder to the point where production capacity outside China (and certainly within USA and the dwindling number of deeply friendly nations) is almost non existent. This includes very, very valuable things like chemical precursors and finished products in everything including biotech, building supplies, factory parts, etc. So a world where China walks away pretty quickly falls apart to a much lower standard of living for everyone in the west for a decade or possibly two. That world would be much blander food wise, much more exposed to the elements for many more of us and with much more death from treatable disease.

We have an opportunity here to rebuild the industrial capability and walk ourselves a bit further up the cost structure now with the help of having access to chinese output and what we are doing instead is pretty foolish.

That talk of what we pay vs what we would pay is being used in your argument to point out the pain of losing access to a cheap chinese product when it's more useful for antitrust discussion of where market power is being abused and instead just pointing out the direct pain of a china walking away situation in my opinion.