some kind of absolutist. Many ideologies are based in pretty solid principles and sure, some circumstances change over time and we should always be mindful of things we could do better as people and society -- but there can also be some pretty good arguments why some principles and approaches exist.

I disagree with the comment on Trump and China. China has a laundry list of serious issues -- some trade, some well beyond trade. I'd love a deeper discussion on a country by country dive on who has actually done what in all kinds of trade areas over the past 30 years. China has been an improper player on many trade fronts since they joined the WTO, but there are dirty hands in many areas in many directions -- and China has always had an issue because they have so many darn people and hence, cheaper labor that they essentially have been trying to raise through manufacturing for decades. Other countries have similar issues with people -- such as India -- but we battle less with them on trade partly because India just hasn't tried or been as successful in some of these same areas. But it means India tends to have other internal issues with layers of poverty and attempted development as well. It just becomes easier for us to ignore since they haven't been as aggressive or successful with many of their exports or with a different focus and so not as "disruptive" to the US. in some of the same ways.

Xi has really been a terrible leader for China and who knows if the tide will ever turn with them in a more positive geopolitical way. Not close to having the time to delve in more deeply here and even if we did -- I would never try and be so dug in on the trade aspect of the issue that I would pretend to know some obvious best approach. But I simply don't think its the Trump Tariff approach -- either what was done already or how Trump talks -- for many reasons related both to China and the U.S. I don't think it really helps solve or even positively influence anything -- it causes some specific additional "harm" -- and it is the epitome of "swamp politics", as exemplified by the history of tariffs including these that have carved out exceptions (even within fish!) based purely on DC influence.

China has always been a major player in steel -- or at least since they came out of their own dark ages. They are a disruptive player because of their volume, cost - other factors as well. Realistically, all developed countries that also manufacture steel are going to protect some of their own interests -- and some of this must be done for obvious reasons. I am no steel expert so its hard for me to comment in what seems some good "scalpel" approaches rather than sledgehammers that may not make sense specifically with steel. Trade remedies today - including China related - tend to be much more hammer related and as much a gift to a constituency as anything. Search "steel imports and trade" and you will find layers of current protections in different forms we have now. I see it it in many areas, especially with union voices and with any domestic constituency with half of an organized DC voice. It doesn't mean they are all without basis or that the US shouldn't maintain meaningful trade arrows in its arsenal --- like all countries. I would never say that.