It is not like cheap manufacturing, where the US has to cede ground to China because they simply can't compete. Tech is where the US excels.
Monopolies have better economies of scale as an intrinsic real advantage but tend to be more hidebound and less innovative as they both don't need it in the moment and from a fear or cannibalization. But not always for innovation - they may also have the resources to devote to R&D that smaller players would lack.
The mechanism of the monopoly also has significance for it determines what needs to be done to maintain it. Although having a "better" source like leveraging a prior runaway success is no guarantee that they won't turn to bad ways to preserve it like regulatory capture with no other purpose served.
Instead we have house of cards, layered up on top of each other, without regard for the bloat, impedance mismatches, (intentional) incompabilities and cognitive load that brings with it.
Nicely done...
How are they going to do that?
> If they don't then fine them just as much, to have access to the US market.
That's not the issue, the Chinese tech companies would have more freedom and support for the international market. Access to the US is just one part of that and there are already obstacles to that market. The main point is that the US companies would be hamstringed in a way that China companies would not.
U.S. jurisdiction extends on its territory and across the U.S. dollar. If a Chinese company wants to sell to no American companies and never use dollars, they're free to ignore American law.
More pointedly, we've gone through this before. With the USSR. Competitive markets develop better than command-driven ones.
Huawei threatening to become the global standard 5G telecommunications equipment manufacturer is a good example.
China's formula of state capitalism is likely to win in winner-take-all markets. Tearing U.S. giants into pieces would only hurt our competitive position.