Thread by @Ali_Wyne

THREAD: This illuminating piece by @davelawder affirms the need for deep dives that explore what "decoupling" between the United States and China would mean in practical terms and how, if at all, it'd be achieved.

reuters.com/article/us-usa…

[1/10]

Despite the growing frequency with which the term is used, it's not often defined beyond broad brushstrokes, if at all.

[2/10]

One reason it's analytically limited is that it gives the impression of describing a binary phenomenon (that is, the U.S. and Chinese economies are either coupled or decoupled).

[3/10]

In truth, as seen by surveying different commentaries on the term, it refers to a matrix of outcomes in which the United States and China recalibrate the numerous dimensions of their interdependence to different extents.

[4/10]

Some degree of decoupling could occur along several distinct but interrelated dimensions: among them, trade, investment, finance, innovation, and national security.

[5/10]

It stands to reason that the nature of decoupling would vary from one dimension to the next on the basis of several criteria: among them, feasibility of implementation, differential costs to the U.S. and Chinese economies, and adjustments made by other countries.

[6/10]

On balance, then, two individuals who advocate for decoupling from China could have in mind very different end states and envisioned outlines of the path from start to finish.

[7/10]

Calling on the United States to decouple from China does, of course, signify a desire to reduce the former's dependence on and engagement with the latter, but absent further specification, it seems more an expression of a general sentiment than a clear prescription.

[8/10]

The term also contributes to the perception that, with sufficient will and forethought, Washington can unilaterally delink its economy from Beijing's when, in fact, the number and complexity of their trade and technological ties renders such an outcome highly improbable.

[9/10]

If one accepts @henryfarrell and @ANewman_forward's conclusion that China's economy and the global economy are "Siamese twin[s]," then straining to effect a deep rupture could seriously harm U.S. national interests.

foreignaffairs.com/articles/china…

[10/10]