Is he upset global capitalism has been set back?

Depends many international companys will be fucked, smaller and medium ones will be fine.

Because it sounds good if you don't think about it too much
People get excited about "bringing back OUR jobs" but forget that building everything in china for a dollar a day is a big part of keeping down the costs of living.
You can either lose jobs and make shit cheaper, or employ people who won't be able to afford things. There's no winning answer

Yes and trump will have to destroy the artificially created black middle class. At first prices would go up, but with higher wages they would normalize in the longer run.

Why would wages get higher?
No part of the market system incentivizes that in the slightest, especially as automation shrinks the demand for labor and US tariffs would certainly spur other markets to follow suit, reducing demand for American products

Reagan is the most protectionist president in post-war history by some margin.

They would rise, because of higher labour demand. Basically the law is, if you are big enough you don't need the others and you are able to create your own market. Internationalisation works against people with fewer resources, because the have to compete against everyone and yet buy lower quality products, but buy more with the money they earn. I don't want do go in details here, but it has to do with information imbalances and game theory (I will if you really want). There is a concept by Peter Mertens, where in he elaborates, that only in certain fields and certain parts of sytems fully automation makes sense and the automation, if correct policy is in place there will be better products and more jobs (maybe those who some people are not capable of doing, but still).

I might ask you to go into it a bit. Because I don't see how that addresses lowered foreign demand, accelerating rates of automation or increasing labor costs and costs of natural resources rising as well.
What's the assumption being made here that Im missing I guess is the question?

I guess first you have to know the basic assumptions made are the higher the amount of money/ressources is the more you have capacity to measure the qulity of the goods/currency or what ever is exchanged, empirical data behind this assumption. Next assumption most trade with other nations is in fact not about primary resources, but about getting technology out of other countries and/or trying to get them dependent on you (because of the debts you hold), you can look this up most extrem example of this is the behavior is china. Third assumption most natural resources are not really worth that much, especially for bigger countries with greater natural resource spectrum within their own borders and decent technology could use resources of their own to substitute the needed resources, many studies on this, in fact there are departments, at least in Germany, which nearly solely deal with this kind of questions. Forth assumption fully automated systems will not in the foreseeable future replace significantly more jobs, than they create, some studies for this, but there is not enough data to make the final conclusion yet. Since the burst of the .com bubble this position is gaining the upper hand more and more.
Fifth assumption there seems to be an ideal size of a market system and homogenty within in it depending on many factors, which leads to optimal functioning and outcomes of the system. The relationships between the more or less realated systems also have their individual optimum. There is evidence for the current economic problems to result from this and beside the lack of data, cybernetic systems seem to apply universal.

Yes it is, you just have to be born again (Han)Chinese. That's what the Chinese government asked the Dalai Lama to do.

As acclerationist he should be comfortable with either one winning.

true desu