The fact that none of that triggered WTO action points to just how broken that organization is.
The US had the same advantages early on when it was at its own growth stage to superpower, copying European inventions to bootstrap at first, and using tariffs, subsidies and such to protect the local economy, and using their diplomatic/military might later on to ensure favorable deals for their companies (even now, countries and leaders e.g. that think of trading their oil in other currencies are not staying around for long to do it).
e.g:
"[protectionist] policy was most prevalent in the 19th century. It attempted to restrain imports to protect Northern industries. It was opposed by Southern states that wanted free trade to expand cotton and other agricultural exports. Protectionist measures included tariffs and quotas on imported goods, along with subsidies and other means, to ensure fair competition between imported goods and local goods. In today's age the US is still highly protectionist, according to Global Trade Alert the US has adopted over 1000 protectionist measures since the Global Economic Crisis in 2008, more than any other country since"
https://www.bna.com/amazon-close-breaking-n57982085432/
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-03-14/your-tax-...
>The fact that none of that triggered WTO action points to just how broken that orginization is.
Or that the power relations have changed, and its old masters are somewhat toothless.
They don't even brother with tariffs they prohibit all competition and coerce rivals to hand over the fruits of their research. It's diabolical.
The larger point is that China is practicing extreme protectionism while benefitting greatly from free trade.
The GP literally mentions protectionism in the context of the 19th century. I think you’re in the wrong thread.
More power to them, then? Sounds like a good way benefit their country.
Well, they've been forced to open their borders once, at the opium wars, so that "free trade" can triumph and more junkies can be made of their people.
I'd cut them some slack in not seeing "free trade" as all its advertised to be (by those that primarily profit from paying lip service to it).
In the United States anyway, Trumps pandering mercantilism has all but ensured that all global trade will be treated as an axiomatic good by an adversarial press (WaPo and NYT, primarily), nuance be damned.