China Debate Clarification

Earlier today I engaged in a debate over Trump's proposed tariffs against China if a new trade deal was not reached/ Some incorrect ideas were made by the opposing side, Mike Harris, the editor of Veterans Today.

He seems to have attributed much of China's development in technology via theft of US intellectual property. While I am sure there is industrial espionage, it is by no means a one-way street. Every country spies on the research and development of another. Just as every country has spies functioning in the countries it competes with. The assumption here is that China is merely the only violator of "market norms".

Another problem with his defense: Mr. Harris relies upon the same flawed assumption that Trump does, the idea that a trade deficit is automatically a bad thing. The introduction of cheap Chinese commodities into the US has done much to lift the living standard of many American, particularly those of the lower classes. Luxuries which were once impossible to afford, or difficult to afford are now plentiful. There are also other economic factors such as comparative advantage we would need to consider.

Finally, he seems to be unaware that the US has unilaterally violated already existing agreements, particularly so under President Trump. This makes two things clear: 1. There already was a trade agreement in place. 2. The US is operating in bad faith. There's no reason to believe the US when it comes od making deals

Mr. Harris is an adamant support of Trump and his policies. Many of which have been harmful to the US economy. The economy grew only 1.4% after correcting for a giant buildup of inventories caused by companies stockpiling parts and goods cheaply in advance of tariffs that Trump plans to slap on Chinese-made goods in January, raising their price.
Housing, business structures, equipment, software and intellectual property shrunk .3%, the worst performance in years. A drop in exports led to a big deduction from growth.

Given all of this, I have great reservations about many f the statements made by Mr. Harris during our debate.