>Tit-for-tat protectionism is also known as a trade war, which is also generally considered to be negative for both parties.

It is, but if you fail to retaliate you're basically advertising to other countries that they can impose protectionist measures, which benefit them and harm you. Did EU/Canada get flak for imposing retaliatory tariffs in response to trump's tarrifs?

Milton Friedman describes how tariffs only cost the imposing country here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fkHdq_2EUk4

> There's a pretty overwhelming consensus among economists that protectionism is indeed a bad thing.

So we just let China copy our tech and sell it to us cheaper?

What happens to our workforce and salaries? The same thing that happened to factory workers?

I'm even more worried about their lack of free speech, rigid punishment/enforcement, and Orwellian tracking/social credit. We don't want those things here. But showing that they win makes it more likely to become pervasive.

Edit: Downvotes on everything critical of China.

> What happens to our workforce and salaries?

Ideally, people could work less and have the same standard of living, which is easier if things are cheaper.

If I was an evil wealthy person interested in perpetuating my position through controlling people, but slavery was outlawed, I'd design a system where work is overvalued so people will be too tired to participate in civic life.

I think the "copy our tech" angle is interesting from a legal standpoint. Patents and copyrights are a legal framework to prevent importation of infringed materials. I'm not sure the answer, but interesting problem none the less.

I think you don't understand that US bosses set US salaries, they are the ones choosing to not use US labor.

Unfortunately it’s up to both parties to avoid Tit-for-tat protectionism, a one sided trade war is over time the worst of all three options as there is no reason for the other party to stop. It’s the same reason WWII was less economicly expensive than the Cold War.

Economists, the famously recognized scientists! Meanwhile protectionism lifted china in less than 30 years to the level of a superpower.

China has a lower per capita GDP then Botswana and Iraq.[1] It's a superpower mainly because it has a huge population.

[1]: https://www.worldometers.info/gdp/gdp-per-capita/

China restricted access to its markets from the onset. They forced foreign companies to operate JVs to access their market or labour and forced a lot of technology transfers. Their whole HSR industry was built on this model.

Protectionism works depending where your POV is from.

> There's a pretty overwhelming consensus among economists that protectionism is indeed a bad thing.

Economists are short-sighted there. Yes, economically, speaking in general protectionism is more harmful than not.

But things like selling essential companies, infrastructure or have foreign and possible hostile players in critical positions is risky.