The question isn't one of "can" and "can't". The west is empowered to make its own people worse off. The politicians do so all the time.

The issue is we've got a situation with a high quality Chinese option and lower quality western one. Obviously Westerners will be worse off if the high quality option is banned. They all wanted to use that one (otherwise it wouldn't be necessary to ban it). It is obviously making them pick an option they'd rather not.

There is no economic reason to voluntarily make people worse off. It is pure downside.

> Same as anti-dumping import taxes.

They're also on shaky footing and probably make people worse off for little gain. Wikipedia humorously notes that in the EU 98% of the time anti dumping laws are being used to target things other than dumping.

Academics have to be pretty wild-eyed to argue that people need to be protected from large amounts of cheap stuff. I personally can't even imagine their horror. If someone sells you stuff for cheap, buy it for cheap. The market will work it out.

In anti-dumping, it’s protecting not the people. It’s protecting local market.

Goods at dumped prices will disrupt local markets and bankrupt local competitors. Then dumpers can raise prices way beyond initial prices to win jackpot. That when „the people“ loose. Local know-how is destroyed, industry ruined… and you end up paying a ton for imported goods.

Personally I don’t think TikTok is „better“. It’s more addictive and has a ton of marketing moneys pushing it forward. Should we not ban cocaine because the masses think it’s a great entertainment?