I said an efficient producer, one that provide a good quality product at a low cost.This is not a zero sum game. The most efficient producers are penalizes by tariffs and less efficient are rewarded. For example steel and aluminium producers in China that are producing better products for the price are hurting less efficient producers in the US so we penalize the Chinese producers with tariffs and thus reward the US producers. China responds by putting tariffs on US soybean producers , know the world over for high quality beans, at low prices thus penalizing US soybean producers and in so doing rewards Chinese producers who produce an inferior produce for the price. It's classic government inference in the free markets and everybody loses in long run.The US will not win the trade war because there are no real winners. It won't create jobs. It'll raise prices, and it will have a potential impact on our export business. Trump's isolationist trade policy does not take into account that every trade barrier created by the US creates an equal an opposite reaction by our trading partners, which is also what American lawmakers ignored during the Great Depression.China is leveraged out the wazoo and capital flight is really taking off so the trade war there won't last more than 90 days without serious brain drain to mostly Canada.
If you went down Wall Street today and asked who is not adversely effected by tariffs on Chinese imports, Mexican imports, Canada imports, and UK imports, all which are putting tariffs on US exports. The answer would be none.
At an estimated 4 GDPs of debt in China I find your argument implausible.
Getting capital for nothing and import restrictions and tariffs for free is efficient?