Thew only picking and choosing is the picking and choosing some companies will do on their own. Other than that it is interfereing far less in the marketplavce than the present system or any other reasonbable system. Unless you consider socialism of the Chinese style a beneficient policy. It certainly does not interfere as much as any of teh EPA rules but then again if you like the present system you object to anything which changes teh status quo. If one is loyal to say the PRC then there is a very good reason to object to anything that means less rules and regulations.
"Since there is no tax subsidy involved merely a tax benefit fiven to anyone who makes the free choice to invest in these zones and follow the initial rules if they can not produce a product economically for a price they can get in the free market I presume they will go out of business."
And, if they still can't compete, would you then enact protective tarriffs? Who would pay these tarriffs?
IF it is decided that protective tarriffs are enacted then those who import goods subject to tarriffs will pay for them. The choice is maintain the standard of living of America or face violence (no threat merely prediction). If the standard of living is not maintained by tarriffs it will be maintained by socialism which if one likes socialism one will be appalled at anything that vrelies on entrepenuerialism as these programs would.
However, most of this is moot we have not even gitten rid of the subsidies for capital going offshore. Let us ghet that done first.
Now maybe you like all the EPA, IRS, and other regulations but I tend to think they are a drag on the economy. We can debate your support of government regulation and confiscatory taxes later. Since it is obvious you don't seem to like anything that would decrease income taxes for anyone as this clearly would at least mnaybe we can agree to get rid of teh subsidies to those nations that are potential enemies of America.