Supply and demand was the basic premise of the article... And supply and demand in terms of economics is everywhere.

In Trump-fairly-tale-land supply and demand don't matter but I think the WSJ knows better.

Trumps tariffs are implicit admission that US manufacturing is not competitive with China. China has won the trade war and Trump is doing the easy option of imposing trade barriers and raising revenue via tariffs- but this quick and easy fix does not address the chronic loss of competitive advantage the US has allowed to develop over the last 5-6 decades. The US is now more than ever reliant upon its extraordinary privilege of being the dominate reserve currency issuer and of holding monetary and military leverage over most of the world. China has won the trade war and must logically expand its power projection capacity to preserve and further develop its advantage- the US is admitting it is on the defensive and has already lost major strategic dominance in multiple important areas like rare earths, robotics, virtually all consumer goods manufacturing, biotech, nanotech, solar power and major infrastructure investment. The wests crony capitalism with its huge over reliance of financialisation and fiat debt driven speculation as opposed to productivity is being beaten at its own game by the mixed economy of China and the west, led by USA is now seeking to change the rules of engagement and preserve its global hegemony. Good luck with that...its no sure bet. The contest of the century is on and there is no clear winner yet. China has the lead on many fronts- on others the US is rapidly losing its legacy leadership. Chinas CIPS and mBridge digital trade payments protocols now threaten fundamental US strategic asset of petrodollar SWIFT hegemony. Tariffs are an act of desperation because to truly rebuild US manufacturing and trade surpluses is a much more complex and difficult task than bullying trade partners into a trade war-pact against China.

Everyone needs to read the intro of Henry Hazlitt's Economics in One Lesson.

In it, he explains the disconnect between the usefulness of economics as a method, and the usefulness of the economics predictions people see on TV.

The problem is that economics, moreso than almost any other discipline, deals with policies that result in winners and losers. Because of that, interested parties are incentivized to manipulate the economic analysis in their favor, either by distorting the data or by bringing on friendly experts that support their position. And because interested parties are the most incentivized to get their message out, that's who you tend to see in the press.

There isn't as much of a market for neutral economic analysis, unfortunately.