I saw this on 60 minutes last night. While there could be some truth to elements of it, the whole story just goes against so many things that the US should actually value, such as a free market. I think the best part of the whole story was the example of a man who was visited by federal agents due to his Huawei installation, and he saying something along the lines of "i had no other option, Cisco doesnt make everything i need, there are no other US companies that provide all the parts". He made a decision to buy the right level of cost & quality he required, and because of it gets visited by the government? Sounds a little insane to me, so much for the state staying out of other peoples business...
> things that the US should actually value, such as a free market
The problem is that countries like China disrupt the free market in ways that are hard to combat -- currency games and subsidies for its own industries, for example.
But the main problem is simple and obvious: As long as we have things like a high minimum wage, environmental regulations, safety regulations, etc., we will be at a disadvantage against countries that don't.
If you've ever played any complex-economy strategy games (Dwarf Fortress, Settlers of Catan, Colonization, Imperialism, and Victoria come to mind), the common theme I've found is that being self-sufficient makes you very powerful.
My conclusion: There's nothing wrong with protectionism, and our pro-globalization economic policies since the 1970's have simply been wrongheaded.
The US doesn't value a free market unless its in its own interest. As a New Zealander I am very familiar with the way the US blocks New Zealand meat and diary products whist subsidizing its own, inefficient industries. Free trade may be preached, but it isn't practiced.
