Believe it or not, I spent the last hour typing and re-deleting a response to your sarcastic comment that you probably casually typed in the span of 10 seconds.

Believe it or not, I spent the last hour typing and re-deleting a response to your sarcastic comment that you probably casually typed in the span of 10 seconds. In the end I reduced a 1000 word paragraph into a short one, in hopes that people who share your views see this. Reuters and AP, as news organizations, do not typically make value judgements. Any opinions stated in the article are the opinions of whoever Reuters is quoting, not of Reuters themselves. Next time, instead of posting such a reductive and frankly off-topic comment, I challenge you to find something in the article that you factually disagree with. On whataboutism: see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism#China https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism#China Now to help you out a bit with an interesting factoid: In the process of putting their own interests above other countries, the USA has made many mistakes, such as aggressive farm subsidies that ended up impoverishing Mexican farmers who could not compete. So there is a kernel of truth to what you are saying - that nationalistic import/export policy was something that America engaged with in the past. You can try and engage some logical debate as to whether the trade barriers China is putting up are comparable here, but it's certainly not obvious at first glance that they are the same thing. The morality of it depends on the strategic purpose of the barriers, what agreements / social contracts were established beforehand, and such. Certainly not resolvable in an off-hand comment like "America - Good / China - Bad".