Well I'm not an economist and frankly most aspects of business and finances make my eyes glaze over so unlike Trump I'm not going to belligerently push to implement things I do not fully understand. It's just that on the surface they sound like a reasonable idea, a way to even out the playing field a bit given much of the reason China is able to be so competitive is that they are allowed to trash their environment and abuse the workers who do not enjoy nearly the standard of living or the protections those of us in many of the places buying these cheap goods have come to expect. Again though this is not my area of expertise so I'm not flat out saying I think they're a good idea, but I do feel the pinch of competing with people overseas who can live for a fraction of what it costs me and I'm frustrated by the race to the bottom with a lot of formerly good quality products being steadily cheapened to compete with low cost garbage.
On the surface anything can be made to sound like a reasonable idea, that is marketing and it is what politicians do: they tell people what they want to hear. Of course we are justified in invading countristan and taking their oil. You do not want the price of gas to go up at the pump do you? So we make up moral and political reasons why we should invade them and we do not talk about the real reasons.
We look at things our way, the way most convenient for our interests, and we ignore others' points of view. So what if they have to starve? Who cares?
Rich countries polluted their way to riches. Working conditions were terrible, pollution was terrible but people chose to do that rather than remain in misery. But now we get on our high horse and righteously proclaim those who pollute or have harsh working conditions are bad people and we should not buy from them. We do not give them the choice that we gave ourselves between pollution and starvation. No, better they starve than they pollute.
In the meanwhile, back in the great U.S. of A. the president is busy dismantling environmental protection regulations because they hamper American businesses.
So, where is the right balance? Does it have to be for everybody where America says it is?
And let us not forget that one reason poor countries pollute is because they are making stuff for rich countries. In other words, we are exporting to them our polluting industries and then we blame them for polluting.
We subsidize our agriculture and deny them the opportunity to make a living in the sector where they could most easily make a living.
China, as it gets richer, is already implementing pollution laws and will continue to do so as they get richer. Environmental laws are expensive and rich countries can afford them. But lecturing China on this is like lecturing the homeless beggar at the stoplight about showering every day. How is he supposed to do it?
It is ironic the America, the country that uses more gasoline per capita than any country in the world, would lecture countries that are using energy to make a living. Americans want to keep driving their SUVs but would deny China the option of using the same energy to develop. It all rings very false and very hollow. It sounds like very bad excuses to support xenophobic policies.
America is no moral position to preach or impose their values. America, like any other country, has some very good things, a lot of meh things and some very bad things. The way to make the world a better place is by cooperation among nations and not by giving the world the middle finger and telling them to phuckoff. America has become a rogue country and is in no position to preach.
I believe American supremacy is waning fast and America is not adapting well to the new world order. America wants to remain "sole superpower" and can only do so militarily so there is danger of America disrupting things and using force. And all will be supported by very good ostensible reasons. Those with the wealth and the power have always found good support in the Bible or any other source of morality.