Perhaps the BEST B1G Forum anywhere, here at College Football Fan Site, CFB51!!!

From what I'm able to gather, the current wait-and-see will be if certain businesses re-shore to the US as hoped, or if they just ditch China and re-shore to somewhere like Vietnam or something. 

The goal clearly seems to be to wall off China and make sure we have trading allies that serve our interests and not China's.  Someone opined that the best way to have done that would've been to immediately hit China and woo the countries we want to get in deeper with.  Instead what happened was unilateral tariffs were levied/threatened across the board, driving countries we want to be allies with to keep their options open, not knowing what the US might do.  They're lining up to talk to us, but they're also still keeping their channels with China open, which seems to be the opposite of Trump's goal.  It made some sense to me.  He may get where he wants to go, but I don't know that he started out in the best way. 

While the stock market rebounds, the futures market remains uncertain, signaling investors still can't gauge their bets long-term.  That will inevitably break one way or the other, depending on what kind of deals get done. 
 

The goal is not to attack China
The goal is to treat all countries as they are treating us
China is just one of the biggest examples

Whats happening is that several other countries dont want to lose the US as a trading partner and will negotiate to keep it

The rewards in the stock market will come 

From what I'm able to gather, the current wait-and-see will be if certain businesses re-shore to the US as hoped, or if they just ditch China and re-shore to somewhere like Vietnam or something. 

The goal clearly seems to be to wall off China and make sure we have trading allies that serve our interests and not China's.  Someone opined that the best way to have done that would've been to immediately hit China and woo the countries we want to get in deeper with.  Instead what happened was unilateral tariffs were levied/threatened across the board, driving countries we want to be allies with to keep their options open, not knowing what the US might do.  They're lining up to talk to us, but they're also still keeping their channels with China open, which seems to be the opposite of Trump's goal.  It made some sense to me.  He may get where he wants to go, but I don't know that he started out in the best way. 

While the stock market rebounds, the futures market remains uncertain, signaling investors still can't gauge their bets long-term.  That will inevitably break one way or the other, depending on what kind of deals get done. 
 

He's already getting where he wants to go in many instances, but I don't disagree with the overall premise here, that this hasn't been the best way to get there.  And I also agree that the primary goal has always been against the CCP.

But that doesn't mean he didn't want to let other countries know they aren't free and clear.  Especially our "allies" as I mentioned before.  Have his moves been petty and spiteful?  Maybe?  Have they been counter-productive to the primary goal against the CCP?  Probably.  Have they completely blocked him from getting where I believe he wants to go?  A pretty clear no.

I read it.  Here is a link that's not behind a paywall, if anyone else wants to read it.  You can type "44" in the page-jump at the top, or scroll down to "page 50" printed on the pages. 

I agree it's worth reading. 

That said, I divide this into 4 broad categories, as I so often do: 
1)  stuff I don't know about and so can't really respond to
2)  stuff I do know about, and the facts were wrong (I wish he'd have cited sources)
3)  stuff I know about, and the facts were right, but his thought-process was faulty, leading to bad conclusions or even self-contradictions
4)  stuff where the facts were right and I'm in agreement

I'm not making a percentage determination here, just noting that all four categories were present in the piece.  I won't dissect them here.....that was a long piece and to respond to everything would take forever. 

I will offer that I agreed with quite a bit of what he said.  Probably most of it.  Category 4 is likely the biggest.  Still, there's a couple of very fundamental, root-level ideas and beliefs he appears to hold which I think are demonstrably not true.  On some things he seems to hold an underlying, here-unaddressed philosophy that I think is missing some things in order to line up with reality. 

Still recommend if you have the time. 
 

I read it.  Here is a link that's not behind a paywall, if anyone else wants to read it.  You can type "44" in the page-jump at the top, or scroll down to "page 50" printed on the pages. 

I agree it's worth reading. 

That said, I divide this into 4 broad categories, as I so often do: 
1)  stuff I don't know about and so can't really respond to
2)  stuff I do know about, and the facts were wrong (I wish he'd have cited sources)
3)  stuff I know about, and the facts were right, but his thought-process was faulty, leading to bad conclusions or even self-contradictions
4)  stuff where the facts were right and I'm in agreement

I'm not making a percentage determination here, just noting that all four categories were present in the piece.  I won't dissect them here.....that was a long piece and to respond to everything would take forever. 

I will offer that I agreed with quite a bit of what he said.  Probably most of it.  Category 4 is likely the biggest.  Still, there's a couple of very fundamental, root-level ideas and beliefs he appears to hold which I think are demonstrably not true.  On some things he seems to hold an underlying, here-unaddressed philosophy that I think is missing some things in order to line up with reality. 

Still recommend if you have the time. 
 

Foreign Affairs is, fundamentally, a bunch of op-eds. They need to be approached that way--which is to say I agree with how you approached this. It's not gospel truth, it's well-informed opinion, subject to all the bias issues that anyone's opinion includes. I don't know that I've ever read a piece in it that I've agreed with in its entirety, but I've rarely read a piece that I thought was such abject garbage that it wasn't worth considering, and I've often been exposed to new ideas or new thoughts about things that had not occurred to me and I hadn't seen discussed elsewhere.

Re Foreign Affairs, I would also add that, as the name of the publication suggests, most of the authors are people that generally favor robust foriegn policy (some might say intervensionist). There aren't a lot of writers advocating isolationism in its pages. On the whole I think it leans towards the international politics of George H.W. Bush.