Same thing Japan did after WWII. Works great if you can pull it off.
For example, the end of Kodak began when Fuji film infringed on their patents and the US government did nothing, still allowing Fuji to sell their film in the US.
You can look at that in two ways. The government broke up a near monopoly on print film that Kodak had, created competition and lowered prices for consumers. But ultimately it started an employer of 200K people on the path toward extinction. Yes it would have been eclipsed by digital anyway, but wouldn't it have been nice if those 200K people had their jobs a little longer?
I am personally torn on issues like this. I see the benefit of competition and globalization, but also the cost to local economies and industries.
> but if you're part of rural America you're getting hit very hard by globalism.
i.e. if you're part of rural America, you're being out-competed by superior market participants located in poorer countries.
It's not that unfair. It would be much more unfair to apply protectionist policies to subsidise the rural Americans at the expense of the truly-impoverished people in poorer countries.