Perhaps, but this is simply logic: Country A imposes tariffs that harm consumers and producers in country A and country B. That is the case before retaliatory tariffs. Once country B imposes its own, now the producers and consumers in both countries have yet more tariffs to deal with.

The leap of logic that is hard for people to grasp is that countries have producers and consumers and many that occupy both roles. A friend of mine had his 3D printing business fail after US retaliatory trade restrictions prvented him from importing 5% of parts for his printers that are mainly available from China. Meanwhile competitors in the US resold 100% China-manufactured printers and still beat him in price in spite of the tariffs. Such an embarrassing example of policy having effects far different from its intentions.

> That’s a non sequitur...

Governments can get control of companies in consequential (privacy, etc.) ways by a variety of means, and it happens everywhere. The Snowden revelations are highly relevant only because you make the claim that the paper ownership or other irrelevant nuance of how China has control over Chinese companies is somehow relevant. It absolutely is not since the end result is exactly the same.

There are many, many accounts of government using soft power to influence American firms to behave in ways that do the bidding of the state,... it is precisely analogous to what China would do with its own firms, regardless of the details.