It seems the parent is suggesting that we block Chinese companies from operating in the USA, basically tit-for-tat retribution. Based on "...while their own companies operate freely in those foreign countries"

This might be applicable for hardware sales, but for service companies (including ecommerce, search, ride hailing, all the big USA tech company niches) it's kind of a moot point. None of the big Chinese companies put any effort into working outside of China. In fact my biggest complaint is they don't do any internationalization at all, so if you don't read Chinese you basically can't use anything. To the extend that services even work outside of China they are mainly only used by Chinese people, see for example WeChat or Taobao or Baidu. So I'm not sure this line of action would have any effect.

If the parent instead meant blocking Americans from doing any business with China (as a manufacturer of smartphones, for example), that's likely to have much more downside to American companies and consumers than to China, so we'd be shooting ourselves in the foot.

But all these points are debatable, see all the back-and-forth about the tariffs/trade war. Some great economic write-ups on all sides.

Well it's a difficult problem, and tit-for-tat retribution could be the optimal action based on my little knowledge on game theory (https://ncase.me/trust/). Yet if things would go badly and the global economy go into turmoil, I think it would be notably worse for both.

Another problem I've noted is also the Chinese companies buying up Western companies and seemingly operating as Western, but actually being fully owned by the Chinese companies which might be even indirectly owned by the Chinese government. Volvo, Supercell, Nokia phones (HMD Global) comes to my mind. From what I learned Western companies can not similarly buy Chinese companies at least fully, and part-Chinese ownership is almost required for a company to become highly successful in China.

So my conclusion is that if foreign companies can't operate freely in China, why should Chinese companies be able to operate with much less restriction in those same countries. Especially if it yields a monetary benefit for the Chinese doing so. Doesn't seem smart. Would love to see some actual research on this.

That corporate ownership aspect is actually a good point. I'm not well-versed on the legal complexities of international ownership or the pros and cons of corporate governance in that situation, but it's definitely something worth looking into further.

On a related note, I find it frustrating how so much residential property in San Francisco is owned by Chinese investors/real estate moguls. I have no idea what the fallout would be to limiting the ability of international entities to own so much property here, but I imagine it would help with the sky-high rents. It's not a line of reasoning I've ever seen a good write-up on, so I would be curious to understand it better.

Individual actions to enforce norms often costs more than the individual infringements. Arresting, prosecuting and rehabilitating someone who commits property crime could cost many tens of thousands of dollars. It's worth it in the long-run, though, despite game-theoretic oversimplifications, because it reduces crime in the long run.

(Almost) everyone agrees that protectionist policies are directly harmful to America's economy. I wonder if people might be more willing to accept them as tools to encourage change in other countries behaviour if they were sold better, though, or sold by someone else.

Rethink fashions and taboos and check whether these policies have merit?

A market works well when it's not distorted.