I've seen it justified like this: Company X goes to China. They do well, putting companies Y and Z out of business. Eventually they too are destroyed by new Ch

I've seen it justified like this: Company X goes to China. They do well, putting companies Y and Z out of business. Eventually they too are destroyed by new Chinese competition, but they make money until that happens. Due to competition, this is inevitable. Somebody will be that company X. Be that company and live longer, or try to resist and die sooner. It's a very pessimistic fatalistic view of things, simply assuming that local industry is doomed because the local industry is unable to enforce an agreement to stay out of China. It is assumed that any such agreement (if even legal) would have a defector. It may even be assumed that stockholders would demand being the defector. The USA makes a feeble attempt to fight this via ITAR, but that doesn't help unless a regulator notices that something can be considered to be weapon-related.