In each instance, Trump was not incorrect in his diagnosis that these are serious problems. Too often, irritation or flat-out hostility towards the man crowds out the good sense occasionally to be found in his core message. But, not for the first time, Trump has found the wrong solution to the right problem.

Loading

The events of the past few weeks are proof enough that this trade war could easily get out of hand. In early March, the Trump administration announced steel and aluminium tariffs which were primarily aimed at China, the world's largest exporter of steel, accused of illegally subsidising its producers. On Monday last week, the Chinese responded with tariffs of their own, worth roughly $3 billion (A$5 billion). Not to be outdone, the US announced another $50 billion ($A70 billion) of tariffs against Chinese products on Tuesday, a figure judged to be equal to the damage done to US companies by the Chinese government's practice of stealing technology from them.

The next day, the Chinese announced an additional $50 billion (A$70 billion) of tariffs against American-made products, apparently and nefariously designed to hit constituencies deemed to be supportive of Trump. On Friday, the president ordered the United States trade representative to find another $100 billion (A$140 billion) worth of tariffs to impose on the Chinese.

The Chinese have behaved badly, that's for sure, and remediation is necessary. But nobody wins a trade war, and imposing tariffs of this magnitude guarantees a kidney punch to the American agricultural and industrial heartland, which can ill-afford it. The firms most impacted by unfair Chinese trade practices sit in Silicon Valley, and they're unlikely to be seriously hurt in this fight.

Traditional trade remedies provide few elegant solutions to this particular problem. Tariffs on basic goods are tempting to implement because they're easy to put into force, and make for splashy headlines. Unfortunately, short of enforcing the same sort of investment restrictions which exist in China, there are few options on the table that don't end up hurting other sectors, and none at all which avoid hurting consumers.

Loading

It is a simple fact of trade wars that they always fail to achieve their primary aim, and that the poorest are most hurt by protectionist measures. Far from "making America great again", these tariffs guarantee that the dollars of consumers won't go as far - and when you're not starting off with a lot of dollars in your pocket, that's a problem. This real, human cost is what gets lost in jargon. Trump is very good at articulating the human cost of globalisation, and so far, no one on the pro-free trade side has found a way to explain why his medicine is worse than the disease itself.

The president should be applauded for attempting to find some blocking mechanism to the economic hegemony which the Chinese are so blatantly attempting to construct; but there should also be no doubt that this is not the right one.

Molly Kiniry is a researcher at the Legatum Institute. Telegraph, London