> In many ways Trump's aggressive trade practices may be the only answer to this if Trump focused on China.
That's circular, US "aggressive trade practices" (which means unilateral tarrifs, let's not spin, please) came first, so making them "the only answer" is sort of self-fulfilling.
Frankly it's much more likely that Chinese trade shenanigans like this are the result of the escalating trade war. The volatile climate makes "big steps" like enjoining a whole foreign company more attractive as the relative threat of retaliation is less. If you think your opponent is going to pull the trigger, you shoot first.
Now we just have to wait for more, ahem, "aggressive trade practices" to be announced by the White House, and we'll escalate further.
This is what a trade war looks like, folks.
That's circular, US "aggressive trade practices" (which means unilateral tarrifs, let's not spin, please) came first, so making them "the only answer" is sort of self-fulfilling.
Frankly it's much more likely that Chinese trade shenanigans like this are the result of the escalating trade war. The volatile climate makes "big steps" like enjoining a whole foreign company more attractive as the relative threat of retaliation is less. If you think your opponent is going to pull the trigger, you shoot first.
Now we just have to wait for more, ahem, "aggressive trade practices" to be announced by the White House, and we'll escalate further.
This is what a trade war looks like, folks.