I imagine it may be hard to audit, and that some people will complain about “protectionism”.

As the majority of what I think I know about international trade comes from reading journalists explaining why the UK is doing Brexit wrong, I don’t actually think I know how big these issues really are — “this molehill is close, those mountains are far away”, to paraphrase Father Ted.

> As the majority of what I think I know about international trade comes from reading journalists explaining why the UK is doing Brexit wrong, I don’t actually think I know how big these issues really are — “this molehill is close, those mountains are far away”, to paraphrase Father Ted.

I tend to assume that the epistemic landscape is biased towards those with the cash to influence it and try to weigh against that when considering an issue. With protectionism, it is a little hard because there are certainly domestic industries that benefit from protection.

That's a good reasoning.

Now imagine how much money and influence China has and how it can affect our corrupted politicians.

China is not a person nor really a cohesive entity. Wealthy people in both China and the United States have much to gain from int'l trade unencumbered from restrictions related to worker's rights or environmental damage.

That would be very difficult to accomplish within existing WTO rules.

Indeed, this is a common position on the Left. Unfortunately, free trade orthodoxy is pretty strong still so even pricing in of externalities is politically verboten.

This is why I always buy $10K+ Rolex watches instead of $20 made in China Casios. Worth it.

Prices going up is not very popular.