So then, all trading is bad for the world, if there are any supply chains?
It's not that there's never any decoupling, or that it's absolutely never necessary. Let's assume that in some rare cases maybe some trade gets interrupted, out of necessity, because of a war or something. This hypothetical possibility is no argument against doing trade as much as it's possible, to each country's benefit, while conditions permit -- which is 99% of the time. Just because something might go wrong next year or in 10 or 20 years from now is no reason to cut off trade now and have a trade war with a country someone thinks might be a future "enemy" or threat to us.
In the above Ukraine-Russia case, maybe some products got disrupted. But that only means this trade will be replaced by a new system, so there's adjustments to the new system as the old system is decreased. But still that previous trade was good for everyone, and the change now does not negate the good which went on for such a long time earlier.
Likewise there's no reason to think Chinese EVs and solar panels are a threat to the U.S. only because something might change later, like China becoming a future threat we have to adjust to. . . . No one is explaining Biden's perception that these products pose a threat now (except that crybaby U.S. producers cannot compete with them)..
Two fallacies with the "global supply chain" hysteria are that 1) usually the trade that's been happening need not really be disrupted (or not very much), regardless of the war or other crisis which might disrupt it; and 2) even if the trade has to be stopped, that doesn't change the benefit of trade which had happened for so long leading up to the change which now causes the end to it. It was still good to do that trading all those years prior to this change which now puts an end to it. You can't name a case where the trade really did damage to either economy, regardless of possible disruption later which might cause the trade to be ended. Just because something good comes to an end does not negate the benefit of it from earlier, i.e., does not turn something good into something evil. That earlier good thing was still good, even if now it comes to an end. Sometimes a good thing might come to an end as a new arrangement replaces the old. But that doesn't mean the previous good thing was not really good.
"Maybe some, maybe some". Like the upheaval of the entire energy sector? Is that "maybe some"?
And when you might consider a country becoming a "future threat" and when others do must be vastly different. When is a country a threat? When the missiles start to fly? Is this when we should start considering changes to our supply chain?
So all the trade with China and Russia/USSR over the past 60-70 years has made us worse off? How are we worse off? And likewise all our Asian trade, with Japan and S. Korea etc., because this requires "supply chains" near China -- all this trade has made us worse off? So basically we should have ended all trade with Asia and Australia and most of the Pacific Islands -- all this trade has made the U.S. poorer? How is the U.S. worse off, poorer now, as a result of our Asian trade over the past 60-70 years?
This is essentially a xenophobic argument against virtually all foreign trade.
It's an endorsement of the Cuban embargo, claiming this has made everyone better off. Also a call for additional embargoes against dozens of African and Latin American and Asian countries which have allied with Russia/USSR and China. So embargoes against a third or half of all other countries would make the U.S. better off. So we've been made worse off by all this trade, because there was a possibility of war?
Well it's neither here nor there. Fact of the matter is companies are doing this on their own in many cases, not being forced by the government. They see what you will not and they are spending the resources to make changes now.
That proves the point I'm making, that there's no practical need for sanctions and trade embargoes, because for real risks or danger, companies individually will choose to disengage from the trade, as they assess those risks voluntarily.
We know who our friends are, who has dealt with us honestly over the years and who has not.
That varies from one company to another, from one buyer/seller to another. Letting each buyer/seller be free to decide works best for the whole economy. No need for the ruling elite demagogues like Biden/Trump and Bernie Sanders etc. to impose their xenophobia and China-bashing onto us all. Individuals can choose whether to trade with foreigners.
Who has cheated, lied, and stolen from us at every turn and who has not.
It is not scientifically possible to identify each foreign country into the "good guys" and "bad guys" categories. Not everyone agrees on this, plus it is still in the interest of buyers/sellers to trade with the "bad guys" in many cases. Countries change too much for us to put them into these dubious categories for all time. Politically S. Korea, e.g., was a bad country for a long time.
And it's not just EVs and solar panels.
"not just"? It's not those at all. No one yet has answered why these products pose a threat. Is China planting body-snatcher seed pods into these products which will duplicate and replace the unsuspecting consumers? What is the threat they pose?
Why do you trust Trump/Biden speech-maker demagogues to decide what's good for us rather than leaving it up to the free choice of individual buyers/sellers to each do what is in their self interest?
