[MENTION=65299]Swordsmyth[/MENTION]: I skimmed over the article and I think your assessment is not correct here. The author is not CCP-propaganda (not even controlled-opp), but he is falling into the trap of idealism, as I did once. We can agree on what is the right action (no tariffs) without having to be ideological purists about it. If Trump/Vance can undo the damage being done to the US economy, and part of the way they do that is by imposing some tariffs on select countries, for a duration, so be it. This is a little bit like if you have a corrupt gang that is running a town, and they are hiding out in a factory outside of town, and you blow up the factory to kill the gang. The destruction of the factory is a loss, and it could be argued that there is a hypothetical world in which a more precision operation could kill the gang and keep the factory, but all things counted, having the gang gone is worth a factory. The problem is that we get so factional on these issues that everyone loses perspective. "You're destroying a factory!" or, "you're just protecting the gang!" Rather, we can acknowledge the cost (real economic destruction resulting from destroying the factory) and the benefit (stopping the gang, once and for all) and then ask the question whether the benefit is, indeed, greater than the cost. In this case, it's clear to me that the CCP influence in the US economy is so enormous and so malicious that it is worth cutting the tentacles off with the sword of punitive tariffs. But there will be real Americans who are hurt by this, and it will do damage to our own economy, as well, like slicing off a leech at the cost of losing some of your own skin. Both the costs and benefits can be simultaneously acknowledged. The article is examining just the costs. It is critical of NatCons but it's also an open question in my mind whether they are actually any different from neoCONs... so you might not like the critique but it's not propaganda.
