This article offers a nuanced examination of the multifaceted impacts of protectionist trade policies. At IntelliSell, our analyses indicate that while tariffs aim to bolster domestic industries, they often lead to unintended consequences such as increased costs for consumers and disruptions in supply chains.
Recent data suggests that even with tariff reductions, retailers face significant challenges in maintaining price stability, leading to potential inflationary pressures. Moreover, the unpredictability of tariff implementations can hinder long-term strategic planning for businesses, affecting investment and employment decisions.  
Your insights underscore the importance of a balanced approach to trade policy—one that considers both the short-term protective benefits and the long-term economic implications.
—IntelliSell Team
Transforming market noise into strategic intelligence for manufacturers
Thanks Larry, great article. The politicians don't articulate this stuff well do they so great job for pointing these things out. I will consider what you have said, as it is different from my perspective and I haven't heard or thought about these points and this perspective before.
It doesn't touch on tariffs and other countries where IP theft and worker conditions etc are not an issue but tariffs are still applied - AU, EU, UK etc.
One of the things about the current approach is that it seems to me to be lose lose. There will be significant economic impact from the approach take. It would be interesting in part 2 ( ;) ) to hear if you were the president, policy advisor or equivalent, what would you do to make it a better world without the impact to everyone on the planet pretty much.
I focused on China because there's a part of me that wonders if the global tariff threats are primarily aimed at China (and subsequently Mexico and Canada as potential supply chain workarounds).
I wonder if the broad tariff threats might be a negotiation tactic - start with wide-ranging tariffs that affect many countries, then selectively remove them while maintaining pressure on China. This creates room for compromise while still addressing the core concerns about China's practices.
Recent statements suggest this might be strategic posturing rather than a commitment to universal tariffs. If the real concern is China's practices regarding intellectual property, human rights, and market manipulation, then a more targeted approach would make more sense than blanket global tariffs.
I know I'm speculating here, but it's worth considering the strategy behind what appears to be an impulsive approach. There are genuine issues that need addressing, but the question remains: what's the most effective way to handle them?
To address your question about what I would recommend if I were in a policy position: I believe we need to return to people-first values in our economic policies. When we truly center human dignity and wellbeing, it becomes impossible to overlook how other countries treat their citizens. The challenge is that any meaningful solution would likely reduce corporate profits, which unfortunately seems to matter more to policymakers across the political spectrum than human rights concerns.
I think people are much stronger and more capable of mutual support than our current systems acknowledge. Most of what we consume is ultimately unnecessary, and our values should take precedence over convenience. The difficulty lies in implementation because these issues are deeply systemic - embedded in our education, public safety, and economic frameworks.
At the end of the day, I think the ultimate goal should be to reconnect consumers with the real human impact of our consumption patterns. This applies far beyond just China policy - it touches everything from environmental sustainability to labor rights globally.
Hi Larry, *wow* what an amazing article!!! Thank you for sharing it, and I wish it could be put out like on "op-ed's" in multiple online news sources... Like if you had a "public link" and then shared it on X, that could be a start, but it might cause you grief also! lol... up to you if you want to do something like that.
As far as a "solution" I put it to ChatGPT -- read, perhaps :) --
I was actually aware of brands like Purism and System 76... I may buy from them one day.
And now I'll address some other aspects of the article... :). I praise it greatly for its moral character... The issue / hard part comes from a couple places... like the "realism" side of it. The issue is people want *convenience* and they want "affordable". Basically what you are fighting are the "forces of Capitalism"... which most consider to be "so American" -- ahhh Capitalism lol... Well, it appeared to work better than the Communism in the USSR. It remains to be seen if the same is true with regard to China or not.
If you think about it... if *1* American company says "f it, I'm manufacturing in China"... or... now that Apple is doing it, my biz is dead if I don't do it too!!... and that's how it starts... and soon everyone is doing it!! It's basically the force of "Western Greed" being reflected back at us!!
One can read about Teddy Roosevelt -- the "Trust Buster"... tackling greed w/in the USA... or the "muckrakers":
Gemini:
"Muckrakers were investigative journalists and writers who exposed corruption in business and government during the Progressive Era (roughly 1890s-1920s) in the United States. The term "muckraker" was popularized by President Theodore Roosevelt in a 1906 speech. Their work, often sensationalist, led to public awareness and reforms, including the passage of the Pure Food and Drug Act of 1906 and the breakup of Standard Oil"
So... really what you are fighting is THIS -- HUMAN SELFISHNESS!!... Good luck defeating that one any time soon!!! loll... But... I greatly applaud the high moral attitude... but *can it be done*???.... only if enough people will do it.
The problem, again, is if you have *even 1* company take the "quick and easy path"... you get what we have now!!
Yoda:
"Once you start down the dark path, forever will it dominate your destiny!!!"
Truth 1:
There is Human Selfishness.
Truth 2:
The World evolves very slowly.
Truth 3:
See Truths 1 and 2... 😂😂.
But WOW... what a great article!!! Super awesome and I wish that every leader on Planet Earth was forced to read it!!... right before they click the giant "Buy Now" button for their next corporate purchase!!!
When I wrote this, I wanted to try and write it so that at the end, people would stop and think about what their involvement in this issue is and if there is anything they are willing to do about it. Buying products from companies that aren't willing to be morally ambiguous (you mentioned System 76 and Purism) is a good start.
I think you are just about in the right spot when you recognize that the "fight" is against corporate agendas (capitalism) and human selfishness. I think I can expand on this a bit further.
The corporate agenda and unrestricted capitalism is well aware of the convenience - security spectrum, human greed/selfishness, and how to make people want more of something. So, if we are distracted, and inherently selfish (self-aware comes before us-aware), it is really easy to convince us that we NEED convenience - that we are entitled to it.
Now, if you couple that with the way business is taught (always be growing), we now have a population that believes it is entitled to convenient goods (for cheap, we don't want to pay enough to create living wages) and corporations who believe that they should be making more money every year. This leads to offloading any new costs of production onto the customers, because they aren't going to give up their margins.
So, are we fighting human selfishness specifically? Unfortunately, I think we are fighting something much more nefarious. We are fighting the people who specifically take advantage of these human flaws and encourage them, just to make a profit, because our system and laws allow them to with minimal oversight and regulation.
In the end, their entire game depends on a complicit population to continue to buy their products. They make the conveniences too difficult to go without. I'm old enough to remember how to read a map-book, so having a GPS in my pocket that also doubles as a phone is AMAZING. So, I get it.
But when I start to think about it, it kind of disgusts me. Companies that work with China know exactly what they are doing and what it means. Yet, they continue to use China. This is because it is easier to hide the bad stuff when it's on a different continent. Then, like we saw in that interview, they try and white wash China's activities and change the perspective so that you think it isn't a bad thing.
THAT, is what we need to recognize and fight. Is it purely capitalism? No, but some tighter, value oriented regulation could help to improve our version of capitalism without changing up our beliefs in a free market. Is the fight human selfishness? Not exactly, no. I think this selfishness/entitlement/helplessness is taught so that they can capitalize on it.
I think what we are fighting is an older concept that has been around for a looooonnnggg time. Plain ol' greed. Most (not all) companies just care about their bottom line, and they are willing to spin the truth to continue raising it.
Individually, we can all learn to be more aware and intentional with the things we buy. We are all selfish to some extent (it's kind of baked in). I think this is the best way to make meaningful change, personally. One person at a time. Companies can't sell and make goods that no one buys. Alerting people to the fact that many of the companies they cherish are in bed with a government regime that doesn't believe in any of the values American's hold dear is a good way to start this, I think.
All good points :)... Yeah when I mentioned "selfishness" I meant to refer to the corporations as much as to the consumers! Absolutely there's all kinds of "conditioning" and "self-interest" going on at all different levels -- the nature of institutions / societies -- they "self-reproduce"... but the laws of capitalism encourage all this... He who has the most 'capital', "wins"! That is, until the gov. (e.g. Trust Buster Teddy ;) comes along and breaks up "all powerful" monopolies... Of course it all depends on how you "define winning"... but I'm just talking about "corporate survival".
If you don't have "enough capital" then your competitors can "muscle you out"... the urge for "survivial of the fittest" extends not just from individuals but also from groups and corporations... You need the "money firepower" or someone who has more can and will "end you"... not always, but often eventually.
How do you fix it? I agree it can only be fixed one individual at a time... but you also can't fully "legislate morals". People don't like to be told what to believe... or "what is good"... "what is right"... "what is good behavior". People think they want "freedom"... how much tho'? ;)
The instant one group tries to tell another group "what is right"... you begin to have problems ;)... as in "who, in their infinite wisdom, is truly 'qualified' to 'pass judgment' on what is 'right' or not" ? :) Who wants to "bow" to the ideas of somebody else as to "what is right"... or "what is ok"... in any arena... things can become like religion really fast ;).
Everything of course ends up being a "balance"... just like how an organism seeks "homeostasis"... balance... or it dies. So it appears to go with everything else as well -- companies / societies / nations...
These are always kinda tricky things as long as you have so many "independent minds" out there... all thinking that "they know best"... etc... again, it's like.. who is "qualified to decide". Well... we have a legal system for that... and theoretically a "democracy" lol... when it works.
On the main obvious points of "fairness" and such things... I get it, and probably most people do, that it's wrong to exploit others for one's personal gain... seems pretty clear... but how to fix it all... not easy. :)... because as you mentioned, so many things are "baked in" -- "self preservation"... "self interest"... "maintaining your tribe"... it never ends. lol
If only people would "just be reasonable"... right?... but who will define that for who... and it goes on and on... :). And the other issue is you can't "force people to change"... some people like being selfish and want to be that way... what can we do? Not easy problems to fix. :)
Good thoughts. I see what you are saying. I think I've got a comment on legislating morals though. Let's see if I can articulate it...
You don't have to actually create legislation that determines right and wrong. The first thing I would suggest is that we just apply a special rule to how we handle American businesses (or any business that sells to the American public) using foreign countries to produce their goods.
Think about this, what if there was a rule that stated something like, a US company that decides to use under developed countries (typically to exploit low pay, environmental issues, etc) has to provide a transparent breakdown of their supply chain and an explanation of why they choose to use that country. This gives the people of America, their target consumers, the ability to judge for themselves whether or not they want to take part in it.
I think more transparency in general is a good thing. It's much easier to be honest if anyone can look at your books. Of someone argues that this goes against their business' rights, then you likely have a good idea that they want to keep things hidden. It's not always true, and you will see some people hang on to the idea of a business having rights, but I think if we force some transparency of business practices, people would be much better equipped to make good choices.
The goods get used by the people (the consumers), it would be nice if corporations had an obligation to prove to the people that they believe in American values.
Now, I know there a million ways to argue against my idea. I have no idea what I'm doing. But something tells me that if ypu made it harder for businesses to be dishonest, then we could see some meaningful change in how they view people. As it stands right now, they only see two types of people: consumers and workers. They want the work as cheap and headache free as possible and to charge as much as they can get away with for consumers.
If you target the protections that let them hide their practices, then we will see them either shift or fail, as the people become more intentionally aware of their underlying motivators. Honest, transparent businesses.
Sometimes it feels like businesses have more protections than actual people in America.
All that sounds good Larry! I'm for it :)... more transparency would be good!... Yes... let people see what they are *really* "voting for with their dollars" ;).
It's funny how some political groups seem to take the stance that "all regulations == bad"... lol... politics is a silly thing... but so it goes... :).
Just to be clear, I still love your original article. It is really thought-provoking and opens people's eyes (including mine!) to what was / is happening re: China and the USA, etc... great things to ponder and discuss. :))
I appreciate all your thoughts and points.... all good. :)
"the people who specifically take advantage of these human flaws and encourage them, just to make a profit, because our system and laws allow them to with minimal oversight and regulation"
to me... that, overall == selfishness... ;) :)... the corporate greed... selfishness and greed seem pretty similar to me... but in any case... good discussion :)
Imagine if people "only wanted to serve others"... what a concept... :D
Really liked the scientific approach to this article, with citations and everything.
Made me reconsider some of my views on tariffs.
Hopefully, one of the positive effects from tariffs and the removal of the de minims exemption is the curb in demand for fast fashion clothes and cheaply made garbage.
Removing cheaply made garbage would he nice. I have a bit more philosophical hope, though. It would be nice if people figured out how to discern NEED from WANT and how the latter can be influenced and confused to be the former. I imagine this will disruptive for lots of small businesses that have taken advantage of that de minimis exemption prior to now, though. Those businesses probably need to start thinking about pivots...
Thanks! I'm glad you liked it. My point of view doesn't seem to get much coverage/discussion, and I felt like it would be good to remind readers that there are people involved in this, and those people should be considered too.
This article offers a nuanced examination of the multifaceted impacts of protectionist trade policies. At IntelliSell, our analyses indicate that while tariffs aim to bolster domestic industries, they often lead to unintended consequences such as increased costs for consumers and disruptions in supply chains.
Recent data suggests that even with tariff reductions, retailers face significant challenges in maintaining price stability, leading to potential inflationary pressures. Moreover, the unpredictability of tariff implementations can hinder long-term strategic planning for businesses, affecting investment and employment decisions.  
Your insights underscore the importance of a balanced approach to trade policy—one that considers both the short-term protective benefits and the long-term economic implications.
—IntelliSell Team
Transforming market noise into strategic intelligence for manufacturers
Thanks Larry, great article. The politicians don't articulate this stuff well do they so great job for pointing these things out. I will consider what you have said, as it is different from my perspective and I haven't heard or thought about these points and this perspective before.
It doesn't touch on tariffs and other countries where IP theft and worker conditions etc are not an issue but tariffs are still applied - AU, EU, UK etc.
One of the things about the current approach is that it seems to me to be lose lose. There will be significant economic impact from the approach take. It would be interesting in part 2 ( ;) ) to hear if you were the president, policy advisor or equivalent, what would you do to make it a better world without the impact to everyone on the planet pretty much.
Thanks for reading!
I focused on China because there's a part of me that wonders if the global tariff threats are primarily aimed at China (and subsequently Mexico and Canada as potential supply chain workarounds).
I wonder if the broad tariff threats might be a negotiation tactic - start with wide-ranging tariffs that affect many countries, then selectively remove them while maintaining pressure on China. This creates room for compromise while still addressing the core concerns about China's practices.
Recent statements suggest this might be strategic posturing rather than a commitment to universal tariffs. If the real concern is China's practices regarding intellectual property, human rights, and market manipulation, then a more targeted approach would make more sense than blanket global tariffs.
I know I'm speculating here, but it's worth considering the strategy behind what appears to be an impulsive approach. There are genuine issues that need addressing, but the question remains: what's the most effective way to handle them?
To address your question about what I would recommend if I were in a policy position: I believe we need to return to people-first values in our economic policies. When we truly center human dignity and wellbeing, it becomes impossible to overlook how other countries treat their citizens. The challenge is that any meaningful solution would likely reduce corporate profits, which unfortunately seems to matter more to policymakers across the political spectrum than human rights concerns.
I think people are much stronger and more capable of mutual support than our current systems acknowledge. Most of what we consume is ultimately unnecessary, and our values should take precedence over convenience. The difficulty lies in implementation because these issues are deeply systemic - embedded in our education, public safety, and economic frameworks.
At the end of the day, I think the ultimate goal should be to reconnect consumers with the real human impact of our consumption patterns. This applies far beyond just China policy - it touches everything from environmental sustainability to labor rights globally.
Hi Larry, *wow* what an amazing article!!! Thank you for sharing it, and I wish it could be put out like on "op-ed's" in multiple online news sources... Like if you had a "public link" and then shared it on X, that could be a start, but it might cause you grief also! lol... up to you if you want to do something like that.
As far as a "solution" I put it to ChatGPT -- read, perhaps :) --
https://chatgpt.com/share/681d63f6-3434-8010-b4ec-d0720ffb1dd2
I was actually aware of brands like Purism and System 76... I may buy from them one day.
And now I'll address some other aspects of the article... :). I praise it greatly for its moral character... The issue / hard part comes from a couple places... like the "realism" side of it. The issue is people want *convenience* and they want "affordable". Basically what you are fighting are the "forces of Capitalism"... which most consider to be "so American" -- ahhh Capitalism lol... Well, it appeared to work better than the Communism in the USSR. It remains to be seen if the same is true with regard to China or not.
If you think about it... if *1* American company says "f it, I'm manufacturing in China"... or... now that Apple is doing it, my biz is dead if I don't do it too!!... and that's how it starts... and soon everyone is doing it!! It's basically the force of "Western Greed" being reflected back at us!!
One can read about Teddy Roosevelt -- the "Trust Buster"... tackling greed w/in the USA... or the "muckrakers":
Gemini:
"Muckrakers were investigative journalists and writers who exposed corruption in business and government during the Progressive Era (roughly 1890s-1920s) in the United States. The term "muckraker" was popularized by President Theodore Roosevelt in a 1906 speech. Their work, often sensationalist, led to public awareness and reforms, including the passage of the Pure Food and Drug Act of 1906 and the breakup of Standard Oil"
So... really what you are fighting is THIS -- HUMAN SELFISHNESS!!... Good luck defeating that one any time soon!!! loll... But... I greatly applaud the high moral attitude... but *can it be done*???.... only if enough people will do it.
The problem, again, is if you have *even 1* company take the "quick and easy path"... you get what we have now!!
Yoda:
"Once you start down the dark path, forever will it dominate your destiny!!!"
Truth 1:
There is Human Selfishness.
Truth 2:
The World evolves very slowly.
Truth 3:
See Truths 1 and 2... 😂😂.
But WOW... what a great article!!! Super awesome and I wish that every leader on Planet Earth was forced to read it!!... right before they click the giant "Buy Now" button for their next corporate purchase!!!
When I wrote this, I wanted to try and write it so that at the end, people would stop and think about what their involvement in this issue is and if there is anything they are willing to do about it. Buying products from companies that aren't willing to be morally ambiguous (you mentioned System 76 and Purism) is a good start.
I think you are just about in the right spot when you recognize that the "fight" is against corporate agendas (capitalism) and human selfishness. I think I can expand on this a bit further.
The corporate agenda and unrestricted capitalism is well aware of the convenience - security spectrum, human greed/selfishness, and how to make people want more of something. So, if we are distracted, and inherently selfish (self-aware comes before us-aware), it is really easy to convince us that we NEED convenience - that we are entitled to it.
Now, if you couple that with the way business is taught (always be growing), we now have a population that believes it is entitled to convenient goods (for cheap, we don't want to pay enough to create living wages) and corporations who believe that they should be making more money every year. This leads to offloading any new costs of production onto the customers, because they aren't going to give up their margins.
So, are we fighting human selfishness specifically? Unfortunately, I think we are fighting something much more nefarious. We are fighting the people who specifically take advantage of these human flaws and encourage them, just to make a profit, because our system and laws allow them to with minimal oversight and regulation.
In the end, their entire game depends on a complicit population to continue to buy their products. They make the conveniences too difficult to go without. I'm old enough to remember how to read a map-book, so having a GPS in my pocket that also doubles as a phone is AMAZING. So, I get it.
But when I start to think about it, it kind of disgusts me. Companies that work with China know exactly what they are doing and what it means. Yet, they continue to use China. This is because it is easier to hide the bad stuff when it's on a different continent. Then, like we saw in that interview, they try and white wash China's activities and change the perspective so that you think it isn't a bad thing.
THAT, is what we need to recognize and fight. Is it purely capitalism? No, but some tighter, value oriented regulation could help to improve our version of capitalism without changing up our beliefs in a free market. Is the fight human selfishness? Not exactly, no. I think this selfishness/entitlement/helplessness is taught so that they can capitalize on it.
I think what we are fighting is an older concept that has been around for a looooonnnggg time. Plain ol' greed. Most (not all) companies just care about their bottom line, and they are willing to spin the truth to continue raising it.
Individually, we can all learn to be more aware and intentional with the things we buy. We are all selfish to some extent (it's kind of baked in). I think this is the best way to make meaningful change, personally. One person at a time. Companies can't sell and make goods that no one buys. Alerting people to the fact that many of the companies they cherish are in bed with a government regime that doesn't believe in any of the values American's hold dear is a good way to start this, I think.
All good points :)... Yeah when I mentioned "selfishness" I meant to refer to the corporations as much as to the consumers! Absolutely there's all kinds of "conditioning" and "self-interest" going on at all different levels -- the nature of institutions / societies -- they "self-reproduce"... but the laws of capitalism encourage all this... He who has the most 'capital', "wins"! That is, until the gov. (e.g. Trust Buster Teddy ;) comes along and breaks up "all powerful" monopolies... Of course it all depends on how you "define winning"... but I'm just talking about "corporate survival".
If you don't have "enough capital" then your competitors can "muscle you out"... the urge for "survivial of the fittest" extends not just from individuals but also from groups and corporations... You need the "money firepower" or someone who has more can and will "end you"... not always, but often eventually.
How do you fix it? I agree it can only be fixed one individual at a time... but you also can't fully "legislate morals". People don't like to be told what to believe... or "what is good"... "what is right"... "what is good behavior". People think they want "freedom"... how much tho'? ;)
The instant one group tries to tell another group "what is right"... you begin to have problems ;)... as in "who, in their infinite wisdom, is truly 'qualified' to 'pass judgment' on what is 'right' or not" ? :) Who wants to "bow" to the ideas of somebody else as to "what is right"... or "what is ok"... in any arena... things can become like religion really fast ;).
Everything of course ends up being a "balance"... just like how an organism seeks "homeostasis"... balance... or it dies. So it appears to go with everything else as well -- companies / societies / nations...
These are always kinda tricky things as long as you have so many "independent minds" out there... all thinking that "they know best"... etc... again, it's like.. who is "qualified to decide". Well... we have a legal system for that... and theoretically a "democracy" lol... when it works.
On the main obvious points of "fairness" and such things... I get it, and probably most people do, that it's wrong to exploit others for one's personal gain... seems pretty clear... but how to fix it all... not easy. :)... because as you mentioned, so many things are "baked in" -- "self preservation"... "self interest"... "maintaining your tribe"... it never ends. lol
If only people would "just be reasonable"... right?... but who will define that for who... and it goes on and on... :). And the other issue is you can't "force people to change"... some people like being selfish and want to be that way... what can we do? Not easy problems to fix. :)
Good thoughts. I see what you are saying. I think I've got a comment on legislating morals though. Let's see if I can articulate it...
You don't have to actually create legislation that determines right and wrong. The first thing I would suggest is that we just apply a special rule to how we handle American businesses (or any business that sells to the American public) using foreign countries to produce their goods.
Think about this, what if there was a rule that stated something like, a US company that decides to use under developed countries (typically to exploit low pay, environmental issues, etc) has to provide a transparent breakdown of their supply chain and an explanation of why they choose to use that country. This gives the people of America, their target consumers, the ability to judge for themselves whether or not they want to take part in it.
I think more transparency in general is a good thing. It's much easier to be honest if anyone can look at your books. Of someone argues that this goes against their business' rights, then you likely have a good idea that they want to keep things hidden. It's not always true, and you will see some people hang on to the idea of a business having rights, but I think if we force some transparency of business practices, people would be much better equipped to make good choices.
The goods get used by the people (the consumers), it would be nice if corporations had an obligation to prove to the people that they believe in American values.
Now, I know there a million ways to argue against my idea. I have no idea what I'm doing. But something tells me that if ypu made it harder for businesses to be dishonest, then we could see some meaningful change in how they view people. As it stands right now, they only see two types of people: consumers and workers. They want the work as cheap and headache free as possible and to charge as much as they can get away with for consumers.
If you target the protections that let them hide their practices, then we will see them either shift or fail, as the people become more intentionally aware of their underlying motivators. Honest, transparent businesses.
Sometimes it feels like businesses have more protections than actual people in America.
Idk 🤷🏼♂️
All that sounds good Larry! I'm for it :)... more transparency would be good!... Yes... let people see what they are *really* "voting for with their dollars" ;).
It's funny how some political groups seem to take the stance that "all regulations == bad"... lol... politics is a silly thing... but so it goes... :).
Just to be clear, I still love your original article. It is really thought-provoking and opens people's eyes (including mine!) to what was / is happening re: China and the USA, etc... great things to ponder and discuss. :))
I appreciate all your thoughts and points.... all good. :)
as a further note -- when you mentioned:
"the people who specifically take advantage of these human flaws and encourage them, just to make a profit, because our system and laws allow them to with minimal oversight and regulation"
to me... that, overall == selfishness... ;) :)... the corporate greed... selfishness and greed seem pretty similar to me... but in any case... good discussion :)
Imagine if people "only wanted to serve others"... what a concept... :D
Really liked the scientific approach to this article, with citations and everything.
Made me reconsider some of my views on tariffs.
Hopefully, one of the positive effects from tariffs and the removal of the de minims exemption is the curb in demand for fast fashion clothes and cheaply made garbage.
Removing cheaply made garbage would he nice. I have a bit more philosophical hope, though. It would be nice if people figured out how to discern NEED from WANT and how the latter can be influenced and confused to be the former. I imagine this will disruptive for lots of small businesses that have taken advantage of that de minimis exemption prior to now, though. Those businesses probably need to start thinking about pivots...
Very good article, nicely structured and interesting point of view.
Thanks! I'm glad you liked it. My point of view doesn't seem to get much coverage/discussion, and I felt like it would be good to remind readers that there are people involved in this, and those people should be considered too.