Same thing that stops other countries from doing this. It would create a (multi) generational block against all foreign investment and devastating sanctions.
Cuba did this as part of the revolution. The nationalization of American owned businesses was a major contributor to later hostilities. We don't have an embargo on Russia, yet we still maintain the trade embargo on Cuba.
The current administration is actively burning every bridge built over the last 80 years. I'm not sure that's a strong argument against that potential future (even though I also think that potential future is unlikely)
How about "with the rapid ascent and descent of tariffs against trade partners and allies heretofore unseen in their magnitude, as well as the frequent changes in directions to those tariffs - seeming to use them as threats - again, to our allies and trade partners", the United States has changed its behavior in a way that most people would see as untrustworthy (and if they were a friend or dating partner, most would recommend a temporary cutoff)?
If we had fair trade coming into January, then I would agree with you. But we didn't have fair and balanced trade with many nations. So Trump's actions are at least understandable.
Agreed. People don't seem to understand that unfair trade practices having been going on for decades. It's just that Trump appears to be the first president to actually take action on the problem. And it's pointless debating Trump-haters on day 2 of what will be a much longer process to restructure global trade to be more fair and balanced.
For what it's worth, I would prefer to have a summary as well, rather than listening to Tucker Carlson and someone on his show for an hour and a half. I read his book, Ship of Fools, years ago and what I gathered was that he saw a lot of the same general negatives as the next person and made a lot of sense; but his solution was always an ethnostate, veiled or otherwise, to fix everything - or I suppose "immigration is the harm" and "people not like us", etc.
If there's useful information from what he says, I'd love to hear it, but I don't want to hear the other half again as it's exhausting.
I've never once heard Tucker Carlson frame an argument along the lines of protecting an ethnostate (if thats what you mean) and his contribution is minimal. The majority of the talking is done by Bob Lighthizer (as you'd expect given he is being interviewed).
Actually, your comment is a blinkered, partisan view. The current administration has deeply damaged long-term international relationships and acts in a capricious manner.
Criticizing an administration for its missteps is a fundamental aspect of First Amendment rights and should be encouraged when that criticism is valid.
There was plenty to criticize in the previous admin, and voters who supported them were not shy about stating their griefs.
What I find both curious and frightening is that supporters of the current admin will never speak out against it (a la "four legs good, two legs bad"). The only exceptions are those who have incurred direct harm that they suddenly care about themselves being impacted.
Partisanship is an evil that plagues politics. We were warned by George Washington about this but failed to act accordingly.
Russia actually did do that recently though right? "What stands on Russian soil is owned by Russia"
And the US still trades with them, and seems to really want a closer relationship.
Cuba did this as part of the revolution. The nationalization of American owned businesses was a major contributor to later hostilities. We don't have an embargo on Russia, yet we still maintain the trade embargo on Cuba.