Yes, the whole point of free trade means that we can buy the best mobile phones or the best computer chips or the best washing machines.

Without free markets you end up having worse products win which is bad for everyone.

Ethically and legally, probably not. Protectionism has been around forever, and any government obviously has a responsibility to its own people to act in their interests.

But economically and in terms of good foreign relations, definitely. Closing the gates in such an overtly hostile way to foreign businesses competing with your home grown ones hurts international trade, and ultimately that can end up badly for everyone over the long term, even if it brings some short term benefit.

So by extension you'd be happy if the EU imposed a 300% tax on Boeing imports? Even if it meant Americans lost jobs.

That's what this attitude results in: trade war.

What are those best interests?

In this case the Trump administration wanted to protect Boeing against Bombardier by denying access to a key market, making Bombardier's entire C-* project unprofitable. The outcome (so far) is that Airbus/Bombardier can still make the airplane and export to any country from either Canada or the US, whichever has the best trade conditions. This does not sound favourable for Boeing's export business.

AIUI this isn't an unusual outcome: A government wants to protect domestic business against imports, accidentally hurts its own exports and offends someone in the process. The domestic business may be its best interest but that's hardly obvious.

Not if you also allow other countries for looking out for their own best interests.

And that is a big problem (among a boatload of others) with the current American administration. It is not America First but America only. That with no consideration for their "allies" or applying a different set of standards to others...

When the United States, Canada, and Mexico negotiated NAFTA, they explicitly chose to agree on a mutual set of best interests over that of any one members specific best interests (minus some explicitly carved out exclusions that were also negotiated). Unfortunately, some parameters of the agreement were either not negotiated at the time or forgotten about. One such parameter is the definition of a government subsidy, and what actions or set of actions constitutes to be as such.

Proponents of the United States variety of capitalism preach and espouse (or at least used to) free trade as both gospel and a kind objective truth while ignorant (at times on purpose and at times sufficiently unaware) of how big business and the government are bedfellows scratching each others backs (big sugar, the corn lobby, big oil, the automakers, other agribusinesses such as dairy, telecom, Silicon Valley and other tech companies, the military-industrial complex, and commercial aviation to name just a few: Boeing straddles the last two industries).

In comparison, Canada has more hybrid approach somewhere between a market economy and a command economy practically necessitated by the confluence having a large land area, a relatively small population, and an economic, cultural, and military powerhouse for a next-door neighbour. And yes, similar sort of mutual government/business back-scratching does occur in Canada. However, most if not all of the policies that Canada has is mostly to prevent itself from being economically and culturally drowned-out/overwhelmed (do notice that I left out militarily). In spite of the investments that the various levels of Canadian government make, they readily allow foreign investors and corporations to buy or merge with large, iconic Canadian businesses after assessing the impact through mandatory reviews much like US Congress does (Molson Coors, Target buying Zellers from the Hudson's Bay company, and Wendy's merging with Tim Horton's, Tim Horton's later repatriating itself, then merging again with Burger King.

TL;DR There is nothing inherently wrong with looking out for your own best interests. But, there is something wrong with the pot calling the kettle black (hypocrisy).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molson_Brewery

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molson_Coors_Brewing_Company

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zellers#2010.E2.80.932013:_Lea...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tim_Hortons

> Is there something inherently wrong with looking out for your own best interests?

No. However, "best interests" can get very complex when considering the subsequent reaction of other parties - please see the iterated prisoner's dilemma.