The economic interdependency argument is fragile. It has been refuted at least once in history. In the 1909 book 'The Great Illusion', British lecturer, journalist, author and Member of Parliament and Nobel Peace Prize recipient Norman Angell argued along the same lines. Coming at the tail end of an unusually long and prosperous European Golden Age, the Belle Époque, it was very well received in its time. 5 years later, the trenches of WWI would put the lofty ideals to rest.
> According to Angell, the economic interdependence between industrial countries would be "the real guarantor of the good behavior of one state to another",[6] as it meant that war would be economically harmful to all the countries involved. Moreover, if a conquering power confiscated property in the territory it seized, "the incentive [of the local population] to produce would be sapped and the conquered area be rendered worthless. Thus, the conquering power had to leave property in the hands of the local population while incurring the costs of conquest and occupation."
I wasn't making an argument about interdepence. I was making an argument about one-way dependence. E.g. China being dependent on the rest of the world in very asymmetric way than the rest of the world is dependent on China. That is a different situation from just observing that there is trade between nations. China has trillions of assets held in custodial accounts in the US and other European nations. The situation is not reversed. We do not have trillions held in custodial accounts by China. It's a one way street.
Prior to WW1, trade was roughly balanced within the world. You cannot even compare the situation then and now. Hell, prior to 2000, trade was roughly balanced. What we are seeing now is unprecedented in recorded history.
This looks like a very narrow definition of "assets". Just because US & other nations outsourced everything to China – doesn't mean they now get to keep only the assets. Factories, raw materials, technology, manufacturing – all those are as much core assets as USD accounts or real estate too.
> According to Angell, the economic interdependence between industrial countries would be "the real guarantor of the good behavior of one state to another",[6] as it meant that war would be economically harmful to all the countries involved. Moreover, if a conquering power confiscated property in the territory it seized, "the incentive [of the local population] to produce would be sapped and the conquered area be rendered worthless. Thus, the conquering power had to leave property in the hands of the local population while incurring the costs of conquest and occupation."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Great_Illusion
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belle_%C3%89poque