Trump Says ‘Decoupling’ From China on the Table
Top Trump adviser warned him this was not reasonable just a day before
Jason Ditz
In an era of globalized trading, the idea of “decoupling” from another nation’s economy, totally cutting off all economic dependencies, is a tall order. Nowhere is that more of an issue than with the United States and China, with over $600 billion in annual trade.
After damaging trade wars with China, and a day after Trump’s top trade adviser said complete decoupling isn’t a “reasonable policy” that could actually be considered, President Trump is still insisting it remains an option that is on the table.
Saying it is an option and actually doing it are two different things, and for the world’s the two largest economies to totally disconnect from each other would be economic devastation in a global scale. The US would almost certainly take the worst of it, trying to replace things imported from China without anyplace else actually making them.
That it is talked about at all reflects President Trump’s skewed view of trade as a zero-sum game, and the idea that if the US doesn’t import $500 billion of goods from China, they will be $500 billion ahead. This folly has been driving a string of trade decisions throughout his first term.
After damaging trade wars with China, and a day after Trump’s top trade adviser said complete decoupling isn’t a “reasonable policy” that could actually be considered, President Trump is still insisting it remains an option that is on the table.
Saying it is an option and actually doing it are two different things, and for the world’s the two largest economies to totally disconnect from each other would be economic devastation in a global scale. The US would almost certainly take the worst of it, trying to replace things imported from China without anyplace else actually making them.
That it is talked about at all reflects President Trump’s skewed view of trade as a zero-sum game, and the idea that if the US doesn’t import $500 billion of goods from China, they will be $500 billion ahead. This folly has been driving a string of trade decisions throughout his first term.
posted by Satish Sharma at
10:25
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home