Still, free trade proponents point to the example of "Japan Inc" in the 1980s -- when there were fears that Japan's rise as a manufacturer threatened future American prosperity -- as evidence that concerns over foreign competition can be overblown.
Yet a key difference between "Japan Inc" in the 1980s and "China Inc" is that Japan discouraged foreign investment, whereas China has embraced it.
Back then, some key U.S. multinationals made a great deal of noise in public, and in the U.S. Congress, about unfair Japanese trading practices. Their interests were aligned with the smaller domestic manufacturers.
But today, multinationals profit hugely from China and have less incentive to rock the boat. Only last week, Yum Brands Inc, the owner of the KFC, Pizza Hut and Taco Bell fast food restaurants, reported its operating profit was 75 percent greater in China than in the U.S. in the first quarter.
"The big difference is that no one made any money off Japan Inc," said Diane Swonk, chief economist at Mesirow Financial. "But some people are making a lot of money off China Inc."
Silence of the CEOs
Big American companies with investments in China are afraid to criticize Beijing because of the controls it has over just about any access to the Chinese market. They fear too strident a stance could mean they will lose contracts or even be ostracized as Google Inc was after a dispute with China over censorship and hacking.
"The Chinese government controls all the levers of the economy, from import and export licenses on up," said Victor Shih, an assistant professor of politics at Northwestern University. "There are so many ways for the Chinese government to retaliate it is no surprise businesses are so reluctant to criticize it."
But multinationals and their CEOs have a great deal of influence on debate in Washington and more widely in the country. They have often lobbied aggressively against any measures they deem protectionist, so their relative silence is seen by many smaller manufacturers and others as weakening the U.S. in its trade relationship with China.
"The issue today is that the firms hurting the most are not as politically connected as the firms that are benefiting the most," Mesirow's Swonk said.
There are no easy answers to America's predicament, for either the administration of U.S. President Barack Obama or the businesses that have bet heavily on China.
The WTO, for instance, ruled on March 11 that the United States could not levy extra duties on Chinese goods that the American government had described as subsidized and unfairly priced.
But such difficulties are not a reason for multinationals to roll over easily in the face of Chinese demands, say critics of their behavior.
Critics and academics warn that multinationals trading technology for market access have frequently found themselves a few years later losing out in export markets to Chinese competitors who were formerly their partners.
"The companies that hand over proprietary technology do so in the hope that they'll be the ones to get the better end of the bargain," said Eswar Prasad, a trade policy professor at Cornell University and a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution. "But so far the Chinese have come out ahead in most cases. Hope springs eternal, but it's a very dangerous bargain to make."
The handing over of proprietary technology also raises questions about the impact on U.S. national security, especially in trying to keep the Chinese military from being belligerent towards American allies in the Asia-Pacific region.
In a re
