[noelsusman]

Trump was not the first president to bring the threat of China into mainstream political discourse. The most famous moment of the 2012 presidential debates was Obama mocking Romney for naming Russia as our biggest geopolitical adversary rather than China. It has been a constant topic of discussion in Washington for decades. Also, economists nearly universally agree that trade deficits are not remotely the same as "losing" money to a country. That's not how trade deficits work. I have a massive trade deficit with my local grocery store, and nobody would describe that as a problem. These are the same economist who also universally agree that China is a major threat to US economic power.

The US has been facing the same problem that every superpower faces. We benefit from a stable global geopolitical climate, so any move that rocks the boat is bad for us. That's why every president until Trump has been reluctant to truly bring out the big guns with China. Those guns hurt us as much as China, and Trump is feeling that now. His trade war with China has wiped out most of the economic benefits of his big tax cut legislation.

Previous presidents weren't hapless morons on this issue. They just realized that we don't have many strong cards to play here. The TPP was the best card we had, but frankly I was pretty skeptical of how effective it would be. I'm similarly skeptical that Trump's strategy will be effective. China can easily afford to wait him out.

[knowledge102]

I agree trade deficits aren't necessarily bad for the economy. Lower cost of products means more efficient use of resources, lower cost for businesses and consumers. There are negative too, like how U.S. employment loses out since Chinese companies out compete their U.S. counter parts to death (although competition can be healthy) but my main argument isnt that.

The biggest issue about trade deficits with China is purely economic, it political/strategic. The trade deficit with China helps China grow in power. Their economy grows, and with the huge influx of taxes, they are investing in their military and foreign influence operations more and more.

Is it worth the economic benefit to cement the U.S's biggest strategic threat, who is also a brutal dictatorship? The long terms negatives, may outweigh the short term benefits.

You also bring up some good points. Any action against China back then could have hurt the U.S. as well, and our course of action may have been the lowest risk path, and arguably the lowest risk path may be the best one.

[kelnos]

I think the TPP would have hurt China quite badly. I'm still happy it failed, though: the copyright provisions were awful, and some of the rest of it looked far too much like a slide toward corporatism for my taste.