“Although some farmers may be suffering, American consumers have been big beneficiaries of cheap food imports.”

…which means that all American consumers have more economic freedom. The income dollars go further than they otherwise would, and we’re able to enjoy a higher standard of living as a result.

It’s bad enough that many of the staple, commodity foods have been subsidized (think: corn, sugar, &c.), forcing American consumers to suffer the evils of “corn syrup” in their soda, instead of cane sugar, California farmers are now seeking subsidies for pretty much everything else, on account of cheap imports from China. Most studies I’ve seen or read about seem to indicate that a grossly disproportionate amount of farm-aid goes to a relatively small handful of farmers, conglomerates, and farm trusts. What remains to be doled out to the average Joe Farmer is just enough to keep him from doing anything else – basically no different than any other welfare program.

We often read that the enormous USD reserve holdings of China is enough to cause an economic catastrophe here, and no doubt this is a real possibility, but it’s one I’m not terribly concerned with, at least at present. If they tire of holding our currency as a reserve, say, because it’s being dominated by the Euro and the Pound Sterling, they can get rid of it by dumping it on the market, further depressing its value, or they can buy US-made goods and services.

By reducing the effective bundle of goods that can be purchased with a given quantity of dollars, tariffs and trade restrictions begin to slowly strangle this option. Some people will argue that the Chinese produce is broadly subsidized, and that we need to “level the playing field” in order to compete. But if we really, honestly want to trade with other nations, when they build a road-block impeding access to their markets, the proper responses is not to put up a road-block of our own.