I really wish we could do something to stop Chinese intellectual property theft, which has taken billions from our economy and benefited no one but the Chinese. I just don't know how we could achieve that.
China has specifically targeted alot of goods that are produced in red districts. Soy bean farmers for starters, pork farmers for another. Neither of which are likely big Democratic constituencies.
That's a disturbing prospect. It's bad enough that Putin has seen fit to bolster Trump; it would be even worse if the Chinese were trying to undermine Trump at the same time. China shouldn't have a say in our elections any more than Russia does.
Fair enough, but did anyone just expect the European Union or China to just sit back and let Trump smack them in the face without retaliation?? Certain segments of the American population may view him as a tough, strong leader. The rest of the world views him as an easy manipulated and outmaneuvered joke. Because they are keenly aware every decision he makes is for short-term benefit to the US 24-hour news cycle. He is interested only in battles and skirmishes, not the war.
It's not a surprise that the two major powers of the last 250-300 years, the US and Britain, are the ones who in recent elections voted for nationalist isolation in regards to Trump and Brexit. It's the arrogance that we can still dictate everything to the rest of the world. That's over.
Except it's not over. Can Germany protect itself if Russia decided to take them over? Can France? France has nukes but would it use them? Can Japan or South Korea defend themselves against China? Can Saudi Arabia defend themselves against Iran? Like it or not (and I suspect it's not for you) we're in that position to be a defender. It isn't fair to us that we're expected to be the world's security blanket but also expected to just sit back when the world targets us for promoting our best interest. What is your alternative? Should we just demilitarize and pull back all of our troops and hope that Russia and China do the same? What if they don't? The success of Europe (especially Germany) and Japan can at least partly be attributed to the fact that they don't have to spend as much on their military. Then they sit back and preach to us about being militaristic. Must be nice. It's like a 35 year old who's never left home and lives in their parent's basement. I'm sorry, keeping on the leading edge of modern warfare is fucking expensive!
I Should we just demilitarize and pull back all of our troops and hope that Russia and China do the same? What if they don't? The success of Europe (especially Germany) and Japan can at least partly be attributed to the fact that they don't have to spend as much on their military. Then they sit back and preach to us about being militaristic. Must be nice. It's like a 35 year old who's never left home and lives in their parent's basement. I'm sorry, keeping on the leading edge of modern warfare is fucking expensive!
We don't need to be Team America: World Police. Technology and having a more modern army than the other guy did not win Vietnam or Afghanistan for us.
I really wish we could do something to stop Chinese intellectual property theft, which has taken billions from our economy and benefited no one but the Chinese. I just don't know how we could achieve that.
China has specifically targeted alot of goods that are produced in red districts. Soy bean farmers for starters, pork farmers for another. Neither of which are likely big Democratic constituencies.
That's a disturbing prospect. It's bad enough that Putin has seen fit to bolster Trump; it would be even worse if the Chinese were trying to undermine Trump at the same time. China shouldn't have a say in our elections any more than Russia does.
Fair enough, but did anyone just expect the European Union or China to just sit back and let Trump smack them in the face without retaliation?? Certain segments of the American population may view him as a tough, strong leader. The rest of the world views him as an easy manipulated and outmaneuvered joke. Because they are keenly aware every decision he makes is for short-term benefit to the US 24-hour news cycle. He is interested only in battles and skirmishes, not the war.
It's not a surprise that the two major powers of the last 250-300 years, the US and Britain, are the ones who in recent elections voted for nationalist isolation in regards to Trump and Brexit. It's the arrogance that we can still dictate everything to the rest of the world. That's over.
Except it's not over. Can Germany protect itself if Russia decided to take them over? Can France? France has nukes but would it use them? Can Japan or South Korea defend themselves against China? Can Saudi Arabia defend themselves against Iran? Like it or not (and I suspect it's not for you) we're in that position to be a defender. It isn't fair to us that we're expected to be the world's security blanket but also expected to just sit back when the world targets us for promoting our best interest. What is your alternative? Should we just demilitarize and pull back all of our troops and hope that Russia and China do the same? What if they don't? The success of Europe (especially Germany) and Japan can at least partly be attributed to the fact that they don't have to spend as much on their military. Then they sit back and preach to us about being militaristic. Must be nice. It's like a 35 year old who's never left home and lives in their parent's basement. I'm sorry, keeping on the leading edge of modern warfare is fucking expensive!
I can understand that it can feel like that from an American perspective, but it is still simplifying a lot. Bush said similar things before the Iraq war - that other countries just wanted USA to make the effort and that they weren't willing to make the sacrifice. Even though most countries that didn't want to get involved did so because they thought it was a really, really bad idea (for good reasons). Not because they expected USA to take care of their problems. People don't criticize the US for having a large military as much as for what that military is used for. And to be fair, if military power is only measured in money, the US could take over the entire world. Other countries just can't match it. And Japan isn't the best of example for all this, considering the history of the JSDF and USA.
Personally, I think that the EU in itself has contributed far more to the peace in Europe than any military in the world can ever hope to. In the end, I think it's just unnecessary to do like Trump and argue about who's paying most for what. Because the success of Europe, as well as of USA, really depends more on the cooperation that has been going on between all these countries for decades. Which is why I think everyone will lose when it comes to trade wars, nationalist isolation and what not.
For those that have studied tariffs over the years, hasn't China put tariffs on US products before now? All the comes up in a search is all the latest stuff in response to Trump. If they have, then why is it so terrible not to have at least some response, maybe not all in one fell swoop like now, but seems like there should have been some response over the years vs China.
For those that have studied tariffs over the years, hasn't China put tariffs on US products before now? All the comes up in a search is all the latest stuff in response to Trump. If they have, then why is it so terrible not to have at least some response, maybe not all in one fell swoop like now, but seems like there should have been some response over the years vs China.
I cannot speak on past Chinese Tariffs. My understanding of the biggest issue with trade was that China was exceeding its quota of Steel (or maybe Aluminum?) on the market for a while, which was causing an issue with domestic manufacture in the USA.
To answer the broader point: Tariffs on their own are all well and fine. Some people act like they're the bane of modern economies, but I think in a general sense, they serve a purpose just like free trade serves a purpose (some people win, some people lose in each model).
What has people upset (I think) relating to the current round of tariffs - Trump continually escalates the Tariffs in response to China's matching of our previous round of tariffs. It's clear China has no issue doing this - so we're just going to end up with both economies suffering because we cannot leave well enough alone (Since china has the ability to respond in kind to any tariff, it also immediately makes it clear that using tariffs as a way to punish intellectual property theft was just a bad idea).
Also - part of Trump's biggest complaint is the trade deficit. This is clearly unrelated to tariffs (except that they're both related to trade). Having a trade deficit isnt an issue in and of itself, if the goods you're trading for are worth being traded for. To pretend like this is somehow the failing of previous administrations doesnt really add up, I dont think.
China's systematic disregard for IP law is a serious issue, but we need to examine this in realpolitik. The benefits China reaps from ignoring IP law far outweigh the few consequences they face. If we want this to change we need leverage to alter the cost/benefit for China. While tariffs can be useful in some cases they are not the answer here--China has the power to make this an economic equivalent of MAD. While you can find political pundits who support the move, you find few economists.
Leverage needs to be found elsewhere. Long-term the answer is to build allies (beyond Japan and South Korea) in the region to keep China's ambitions regional. China founded the AIIB to solidify economic ties in Asia, and the US spearheaded the TPP to counter it. When we backed out of TPP we ceded Asia to China, throwing away our best shot at leverage with China in exchange for absolutely nothing.
So, what realpolitik options do we have left? China knows military threats are hollow, and has a diverse enough economy to shrug off most sanction options even assuming we could get our allies on board. Revival of a TPP-like agreement remains our best option, even though the countries we just jilted will demand more concessions than the previous agreement.
I am not a foreign policy wonk, so I'm sure there are other solutions of which I am wholly incapable of conceptualizing. I do know, however, that difficult foreign policy issues require long-term, thoughtful planning backed with a fully functioning State department and intelligence agencies. These tariffs are not going to advance our goals.
1000% agree CamDawg. There's no way flicking China on the nose is going to make them say "gee you are right, I was wrong, I see that now. Let me do whatever you say. " Just dumb. That would not work for them back home. Obviously.
As you say, the answer is to encourage close ties with regional powers. And get those on our side, they can help keep China in line. The President only knows one method - attack and insult. He doesn't have it in him to have patience, follow a nuanced plan, or strategically back down from a battle to win the war.
I really wish we could do something to stop Chinese intellectual property theft, which has taken billions from our economy and benefited no one but the Chinese. I just don't know how we could achieve that.
China has specifically targeted alot of goods that are produced in red districts. Soy bean farmers for starters, pork farmers for another. Neither of which are likely big Democratic constituencies.
That's a disturbing prospect. It's bad enough that Putin has seen fit to bolster Trump; it would be even worse if the Chinese were trying to undermine Trump at the same time. China shouldn't have a say in our elections any more than Russia does.
Fair enough, but did anyone just expect the European Union or China to just sit back and let Trump smack them in the face without retaliation??
Yes, but your suggestion is that the US should allow China to smack it in the face and sit back and do nothing. As much as I disagree with Trump on trade, it is 100% disingenuous to say that he is starting a "trade war". The trade war has already started, and China has been the big culprit.
Yet the whole point of international trade, like most economic transactions, is that it is a win-win scenario. If the Chinese government wants to disrupt that balance, let it. It only punishes its own people with higher prices.
Europe was free to not trade with us or put tariffs on our goods as they saw fit when we didn't comply with their trade laws. We have the same right with regards to China.
We have the same right, but that doesn't mean we should exercise it.
Keep in mind we have a lot to lose with China. Keep in mind we have many US companies operating in China and its territories, while there are few Chinese corporations operating within the United States (though that may change with the new tax plan). China could make life very difficult for our companies operating over there. If they do so, the US would have little opportunity to respond in kind.
One of the biggest problems with Chinese intellectual property theft is that the government isn't directly responsible; private businesses are committing most of the theft. China would actually have to go to the trouble of enforcing laws that work against the interests of their own companies and would alienate their friends in the business community. There are additional layers of incentives pushing China to not cooperate on that front--and on the rhetorical level, the Chinese government can always claim that it's preventing IP theft, while actually doing nothing.
Yes, but your suggestion is that the US should allow China to smack it in the face and sit back and do nothing. As much as I disagree with Trump on trade, it is 100% disingenuous to say that he is starting a "trade war". The trade war has already started, and China has been the big culprit.
Nobody has said to do nothing. We've said antagonizing them is not the right answer.
Has there been a trade war with China? I haven't noticed, but I do enjoy my cheap chinese electronics that I wouldn't have without our chinese trading partners. They own a lot of US debt, if the hadn't bought it what would happen? Things might be worse right now in the US.
Have we not profited greatly from trade with China? Ivanka Trump wouldn't have a clothing line without China. If you turn just about anything over, 9/10 times likely to read on it "Made in China".
Has China always every single time been on the up and up with us? No. Have we screwed with them before? Yes. Are they getting the better of us now? I don't know are they. Things are good, why make them bad? Can things be better? Sure. Are there potentially grievances and things to address? Ok sure maybe. What's the point of this posturing? Trump wants a bad guy. He wants a war. Some kind of war to distract people from how awful he and his people are. Is China the cause of all your troubles? No. Why don't we do something about US billionaires, unregulated corporations crushing the little guy, and corporations and billionaires and millionaires not paying their share of taxes.
Has there been a trade war with China? I haven't noticed, but I do enjoy my cheap chinese electronics that I wouldn't have without our chinese trading partners.
As do I, but its easy to benefit in a win-win situation. Trade would be even more beneficial if China opened up more.
What you'd need to explain to me is how matching China's tariffs would be starting a trade war.
Has there been a trade war with China? I haven't noticed, but I do enjoy my cheap chinese electronics that I wouldn't have without our chinese trading partners.
As do I, but its easy to benefit in a win-win situation. Trade would be even more beneficial if China opened up more.
What you'd need to explain to me is how matching China's tariffs would be starting a trade war.
China and the US have been upping tariffs on each other, there's a trade war now if there wasn't before. China's earlier tariffs didn't cause a war before. Maybe they deserved a response, maybe not but these latest tariffs are causing tit for tat trade wars.
What you'd need to explain to me is how matching China's tariffs would be starting a trade war.
As a member of the WTO, China follows the same regime as the US for setting tariffs. The WTO does not outlaw the use of tariffs, it just requires that tariff structures give preference to other WTO members. It's true that China make more use of tariffs than the US, but that reflects the decisions of the US government as much as the Chinese one. It took the US nearly 200 years to be a convert to free trade, so it's not surprising if such a move takes a while in other countries. And things have been changing in China. One of the greatest complaints about their behavior is the difficulty of selling IT there and they ratified the WTO’s Information Technology Agreement (ITA Expansion) in September 2016 - the implementation of this included significant immediate tariff cuts. There have been plenty of other tariff reductions in recent years as well.
If the US wanted to respond specifically to China, it already has the ability to do so. This WTO rule allows responses to be made to countries where you are running a trade deficit.
I was interested to see this article on felony-murder in the US. I believe these laws arose out of the UK common law doctrine of joint enterprise. This doctrine said that all participants in a criminal enterprise could be held liable for all results of that enterprise - so a getaway driver for a bank robbery could be charged with murder if one of the robbers shot a guard inside the bank.
There were a number of high-profile cases in the UK using this doctrine in what seemed very unfair ways and in 2016 the Supreme Court concluded that the historic adoption of the common law into criminal law was wrong. For a crime requiring specific intent (as opposed to crimes of strict liability such as many traffic offenses, which don't require intent), that intent must be present in all individuals. Sharing an intent to commit robbery is not now sufficient on its own to charge an individual not even present with a murder committed during that robbery.
The US law though goes even further than the doctrine of joint enterprise did in the UK. It's not only possible for someone to be charged with a murder committed by another person involved in a criminal enterprise, but for someone to be charged with a murder where no murder has been committed. In the above-linked case a policeman shot and killed an intruder. That was investigated and a Grand Jury decided the killing was justified, i.e. there was no murder. That has not stopped, however, the suspect being charged with the murder of his friend. Does that seem right to anyone?
What you'd need to explain to me is how matching China's tariffs would be starting a trade war.
As a member of the WTO, China follows the same regime as the US for setting tariffs. The WTO does not outlaw the use of tariffs, it just requires that tariff structures give preference to other WTO members. It's true that China make more use of tariffs than the US, but that reflects the decisions of the US government as much as the Chinese one. It took the US nearly 200 years to be a convert to free trade, so it's not surprising if such a move takes a while in other countries. And things have been changing in China. One of the greatest complaints about their behavior is the difficulty of selling IT there and they ratified the WTO’s Information Technology Agreement (ITA Expansion) in September 2016 - the implementation of this included significant immediate tariff cuts. There have been plenty of other tariff reductions in recent years as well.
If the US wanted to respond specifically to China, it already has the ability to do so. This WTO rule allows responses to be made to countries where you are running a trade deficit.
That is the point I was making though. The US has the right to respond with tariffs (though I think it unwise). My issue is with classifying such a response as the starting of a "trade war".
What you'd need to explain to me is how matching China's tariffs would be starting a trade war.
As a member of the WTO, China follows the same regime as the US for setting tariffs. The WTO does not outlaw the use of tariffs, it just requires that tariff structures give preference to other WTO members. It's true that China make more use of tariffs than the US, but that reflects the decisions of the US government as much as the Chinese one. It took the US nearly 200 years to be a convert to free trade, so it's not surprising if such a move takes a while in other countries. And things have been changing in China. One of the greatest complaints about their behavior is the difficulty of selling IT there and they ratified the WTO’s Information Technology Agreement (ITA Expansion) in September 2016 - the implementation of this included significant immediate tariff cuts. There have been plenty of other tariff reductions in recent years as well.
If the US wanted to respond specifically to China, it already has the ability to do so. This WTO rule allows responses to be made to countries where you are running a trade deficit.
That is the point I was making though. The US has the right to respond with tariffs (though I think it unwise). My issue is with classifying such a response as the starting of a "trade war".
What you'd need to explain to me is how matching China's tariffs would be starting a trade war.
As a member of the WTO, China follows the same regime as the US for setting tariffs. The WTO does not outlaw the use of tariffs, it just requires that tariff structures give preference to other WTO members. It's true that China make more use of tariffs than the US, but that reflects the decisions of the US government as much as the Chinese one. It took the US nearly 200 years to be a convert to free trade, so it's not surprising if such a move takes a while in other countries. And things have been changing in China. One of the greatest complaints about their behavior is the difficulty of selling IT there and they ratified the WTO’s Information Technology Agreement (ITA Expansion) in September 2016 - the implementation of this included significant immediate tariff cuts. There have been plenty of other tariff reductions in recent years as well.
If the US wanted to respond specifically to China, it already has the ability to do so. This WTO rule allows responses to be made to countries where you are running a trade deficit.
That is the point I was making though. The US has the right to respond with tariffs (though I think it unwise). My issue is with classifying such a response as the starting of a "trade war".
semantics. "escalating a trade war" then.
Sure, but its interesting that many posters here (who are not even American voters) seem to be eager to assign blame entirely to one party in this dispute. While I don't like responding with tariffs, and still think our trade with China is almost entirely beneficial, it would be nice if someone put pressure on the Chinese government to change its ways, especially in the pharmaceutical industry (the area where the United States is greatly disadvantaged compared to the rest of the world in terms of costs)
For the US, a place that considers itself ruled by law, the law seems terribly inconsistent, both with how it passes judgement, and particularly as to how it is enforced. I don't really see an answer for it all, given the number of people, bias, inequality (as apparently all are not equal in the eyes of the law), and the aforementioned inconsistencies. Many times I see stories of sentences passed by judges (as above, or justice meted out without trial by some police), that remind me of a line from Bladerunner, "Stop right where you are! You know the score, pal! If you're not cop, you're little people". How very true that often is, or at least it seems that way. Now I am in no way against all judgements or police, but there are enough bad cases that make that stand out like a sore thumb.
FBI is raiding Michael Cohen, Trumps lawyer, office.
Get your popcorn ready--the POTUS is about to go apoplectic.
Yep, things are starting to hit WAY to close to home now. Cohen is Trump's fixer. They aren't just going to run into documents about Stormy in what they find. There is likely a treasure trove of evidence of criminality in that office.
It is going to be problematic for investigators, though, because what happens if they run into a document for some other client of his? No, they can't use anything they find which is not specifically listed in a warrant but neither can an investigator unread what they may have read. This fight is going to be nasty.
Sure, but its interesting that many posters here (who are not even American voters) seem to be eager to assign blame entirely to one party in this dispute. While I don't like responding with tariffs, and still think our trade with China is almost entirely beneficial, it would be nice if someone put pressure on the Chinese government to change its ways, especially in the pharmaceutical industry (the area where the United States is greatly disadvantaged compared to the rest of the world in terms of costs)
That is self inflicted and has nothing to do with trade with China.
I also believe companies should, by now, know the risks of moving operations over to China. Cheap labour comes with a price.
Yep, things are starting to hit WAY to close to home now. Cohen is Trump's fixer. They aren't just going to run into documents about Stormy in what they find. There is likely a treasure trove of evidence of criminality in that office.
Looks like "unnamed sources" are suggesting the information primarily relates to Stormy Daniels and band account records. It's unclear (to me) if those two things are related to each other (they probably are?).
Trump's already popping off about it, too.
I wonder if this is going to push trump to do something unwise...
Yep, things are starting to hit WAY to close to home now. Cohen is Trump's fixer. They aren't just going to run into documents about Stormy in what they find. There is likely a treasure trove of evidence of criminality in that office.
Looks like "unnamed sources" are suggesting the information primarily relates to Stormy Daniels and band account records. It's unclear (to me) if those two things are related to each other (they probably are?).
Trump's already popping off about it, too.
I wonder if this is going to push trump to do something unwise...
Trump has now called the raid on his lawyer's office an "attack on our country". Only authoritarian despots view things this way. An investigation of him is a de-facto act against the US itself. Strap in, you were all warned this was coming.
I listened to his response to the raid of his lawyer's office. It's depressing to see the President rambling about a bunch of unrelated topics without being able to string any of them together. Every time I hear him speak, it's a variant of either "these people are doing terrible things" or "we're doing great things," with barely any indication of what the "terrible things" or the "great" things actually are.
It seems that in this particular case (involving Stormy Daniels) Mueller SPECIFICALLY referred the case to the appropriate division in the FBI and the US Attorney whose jurisdiction this is. Even if Trump fires Mueller tomorrow (which would essentially mean declaring open war on his own Justice Department), he CAN'T do anything about what happened today. The Washington Post is also reporting that part of what was seized are personal communications between Trump and Cohen. It is also important to remember that Attorney/Client privilege, as far as I know, only applies to discussions about actual legal strategy or advice. It does not provide blanket cover for participating in criminal acts, like say, breaking campaign finance laws.
Comments
Personally, I think that the EU in itself has contributed far more to the peace in Europe than any military in the world can ever hope to. In the end, I think it's just unnecessary to do like Trump and argue about who's paying most for what. Because the success of Europe, as well as of USA, really depends more on the cooperation that has been going on between all these countries for decades. Which is why I think everyone will lose when it comes to trade wars, nationalist isolation and what not.
If they have, then why is it so terrible not to have at least some response, maybe not all in one fell swoop like now, but seems like there should have been some response over the years vs China.
I cannot speak on past Chinese Tariffs. My understanding of the biggest issue with trade was that China was exceeding its quota of Steel (or maybe Aluminum?) on the market for a while, which was causing an issue with domestic manufacture in the USA.
To answer the broader point: Tariffs on their own are all well and fine. Some people act like they're the bane of modern economies, but I think in a general sense, they serve a purpose just like free trade serves a purpose (some people win, some people lose in each model).
What has people upset (I think) relating to the current round of tariffs - Trump continually escalates the Tariffs in response to China's matching of our previous round of tariffs. It's clear China has no issue doing this - so we're just going to end up with both economies suffering because we cannot leave well enough alone (Since china has the ability to respond in kind to any tariff, it also immediately makes it clear that using tariffs as a way to punish intellectual property theft was just a bad idea).
Also - part of Trump's biggest complaint is the trade deficit. This is clearly unrelated to tariffs (except that they're both related to trade). Having a trade deficit isnt an issue in and of itself, if the goods you're trading for are worth being traded for. To pretend like this is somehow the failing of previous administrations doesnt really add up, I dont think.
Leverage needs to be found elsewhere. Long-term the answer is to build allies (beyond Japan and South Korea) in the region to keep China's ambitions regional. China founded the AIIB to solidify economic ties in Asia, and the US spearheaded the TPP to counter it. When we backed out of TPP we ceded Asia to China, throwing away our best shot at leverage with China in exchange for absolutely nothing.
So, what realpolitik options do we have left? China knows military threats are hollow, and has a diverse enough economy to shrug off most sanction options even assuming we could get our allies on board. Revival of a TPP-like agreement remains our best option, even though the countries we just jilted will demand more concessions than the previous agreement.
I am not a foreign policy wonk, so I'm sure there are other solutions of which I am wholly incapable of conceptualizing. I do know, however, that difficult foreign policy issues require long-term, thoughtful planning backed with a fully functioning State department and intelligence agencies. These tariffs are not going to advance our goals.
As you say, the answer is to encourage close ties with regional powers. And get those on our side, they can help keep China in line. The President only knows one method - attack and insult. He doesn't have it in him to have patience, follow a nuanced plan, or strategically back down from a battle to win the war.
Yet the whole point of international trade, like most economic transactions, is that it is a win-win scenario. If the Chinese government wants to disrupt that balance, let it. It only punishes its own people with higher prices. We have the same right, but that doesn't mean we should exercise it.
Keep in mind we have a lot to lose with China. Keep in mind we have many US companies operating in China and its territories, while there are few Chinese corporations operating within the United States (though that may change with the new tax plan). China could make life very difficult for our companies operating over there. If they do so, the US would have little opportunity to respond in kind.
Has there been a trade war with China? I haven't noticed, but I do enjoy my cheap chinese electronics that I wouldn't have without our chinese trading partners. They own a lot of US debt, if the hadn't bought it what would happen? Things might be worse right now in the US.
Have we not profited greatly from trade with China? Ivanka Trump wouldn't have a clothing line without China. If you turn just about anything over, 9/10 times likely to read on it "Made in China".
Has China always every single time been on the up and up with us? No. Have we screwed with them before? Yes. Are they getting the better of us now? I don't know are they. Things are good, why make them bad? Can things be better? Sure. Are there potentially grievances and things to address? Ok sure maybe. What's the point of this posturing? Trump wants a bad guy. He wants a war. Some kind of war to distract people from how awful he and his people are. Is China the cause of all your troubles? No. Why don't we do something about US billionaires, unregulated corporations crushing the little guy, and corporations and billionaires and millionaires not paying their share of taxes.
What you'd need to explain to me is how matching China's tariffs would be starting a trade war.
If the US wanted to respond specifically to China, it already has the ability to do so. This WTO rule allows responses to be made to countries where you are running a trade deficit.
There were a number of high-profile cases in the UK using this doctrine in what seemed very unfair ways and in 2016 the Supreme Court concluded that the historic adoption of the common law into criminal law was wrong. For a crime requiring specific intent (as opposed to crimes of strict liability such as many traffic offenses, which don't require intent), that intent must be present in all individuals. Sharing an intent to commit robbery is not now sufficient on its own to charge an individual not even present with a murder committed during that robbery.
The US law though goes even further than the doctrine of joint enterprise did in the UK. It's not only possible for someone to be charged with a murder committed by another person involved in a criminal enterprise, but for someone to be charged with a murder where no murder has been committed. In the above-linked case a policeman shot and killed an intruder. That was investigated and a Grand Jury decided the killing was justified, i.e. there was no murder. That has not stopped, however, the suspect being charged with the murder of his friend. Does that seem right to anyone?
I don't see that on Fox News at all for some reason. They have to craft their counter narrative first that blames Hillary or Nancy Pelosi somehow.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/09/us/politics/fbi-raids-office-of-trumps-longtime-lawyer-michael-cohen.html
"escalating a trade war" then.
Many times I see stories of sentences passed by judges (as above, or justice meted out without trial by some police), that remind me of a line from Bladerunner, "Stop right where you are! You know the score, pal! If you're not cop, you're little people". How very true that often is, or at least it seems that way. Now I am in no way against all judgements or police, but there are enough bad cases that make that stand out like a sore thumb.
I also believe companies should, by now, know the risks of moving operations over to China. Cheap labour comes with a price.
Trump's already popping off about it, too.
I wonder if this is going to push trump to do something unwise...