It's kind of hard to regain something you didn't truly lose to China.

First option:
Turn up the heat on the countries that aid and abet such evasion, such that they end up quitting the practice voluntarily. Offer to exchange information on theirs to gain wider cooperation.

Second option:
If cooperation cannot be attained, then take governmental action within the IRS to penalize such activity (as far as they can go). That doesn't mean taking a page out of Nixon or Obama, but to use any legal and Constitutionally approved means to stop the evasion.

Third option:
Start playing hardball through other legal means in other governmental entities. Their tax structure and obstinacy is enough justification. Offer large tax cuts that have a condition of taking a visible penalty or reward for tax structures.

Final (if nothing else at all works and something must be done) option:
The DoD does something outside of the US and K Street won't know the full implications until the public has a need to know.

Creative accounting and structuring implies an actively hostile posture towards the IRS as opposed to getting the last dollar out of your 1040.

You're doing it for the extra dollar, with negligible free-rider problems
Apple's doing it with the intent of having its cake and eating it, which creates a large free-rider problem.

Only with such structured evasion.

Yes, evasion in a manner that the IRS would do well to re-evaluate. No, it's not on the same level as what one might do with a regular tax return.

The problem occurs when US operations are made to look like non-US operations, creating a very harmful free-rider situation. They are getting US protections and services without the requisite revenue paid to the US.

In addition, it is the only effective way to pursue structured revenue, especially when the US has a few world-leading departments under the DoD to help.

Does this include shaming individuals that fake their own threats, such as Anita Sarkeesian and silence any attempts to call them out?

Does that include the kinds of harassment performed by Chelsea "Zoe Quinn" van Valkenberg, Sarkeesian, and the like? Or is it OK if they do it, but not if anyone else calls them on it?

FTFY.

See my title - China has been proven to do it while Snowden hasn't even gone to a US court. The only people that think that the US has lost any moral ground are those that oppose the US, and/or additionally support Snowden's allegations.

Only if you count trackable, legal activity.

So is the alternative, the defined-contribution model.

You get less overall performance and casino-like odds on returns.

Presuming conventional admissions cases to secondary level institutions, yes.

At the secondary level(or what goes on after the 9th/8th year), people are streamed into rigid tracks that discourage and delay upward movement.

So you're fine with having someone's life be divined on the scoring of a few track-determining tests? The US system doesn't have that flaw.
One can improve your academic performance at any time, get a recommendation, and then move up to Honors/AP. Try that in compulsory streaming and you end up going through an entire lower track before your performance is recognized.

I guess you went to a van der Snoot Academy, since you have a high disdain for public schools. Good public schools (yes, the ones run by governments) do exist and they do send people to very good places (even Ivies!).

FTFY.

Any conclusions so far about tests can safely be considered as flawed since they do not take admission type into account. That is, an educational system that takes everybody is penalized while more selective systems (Asia, Europe) do not.

Controlling for access methods (US all-access versus Asian compulsory streaming for example) would show something a bit less favorable to Asia. Never mind that the test score in Asia leaves no room for improvement - it simply forces you on one track.

There seems to be a general "throw everything and the kitchen sink" response by employers against US citizens, while bending over backwards for foreign/guest workers. The only worry an employer has in this respect is that someone calls them out on the fraud.

Schneier's allegations require that you believe a known non-trustworthy person (Edward Snowden)'s own allegation for that to be true.

When all of that can be brought to bear in a US court with Snowden et al in custody, then you can start talking about it as truth when it is proven to be truth.