By researching and then profiling a fluid list of over 1,000 major multinational companies exiting Russia in outrage over its unjustified, illegal invasion of neighboring Ukraine, we helped to catalyze a historic business pull-out. President Biden even cited our list of Russian business exits in his private dialogue with President Xi Jinping exactly a year ago as a warning of the potential economic damage which could be inflicted on China. However, is it far more complicated for businesses to retreat from China en masse.

Just last week, Nike CEO John Donahoe explained his companys ongoing presence in China, arguing that if youre a global company, youve got to just accept it [referring to China-related risk]. Yes, theres risk and weve done some contingency planning like all of us have, but were clear, were going to try to keep moving forward. We believe that frankly, it can help promote peace and understanding.

But just because that is how things are with U.S. companies and China today does not mean that is how they must always be. While the status quo might be the path of least resistance for U.S. business leaders in their approach to China, one cannot help but be reminded of former Citigroup CEO Charles Princes infamous 2006 comments, on the verge of the 2008 financial crisis. As long as the music is playing, youve got to get up and dance. Were still dancing, Prince said. And as the last few years of friend-shoring have shown, ultimately, there is little the U.S. gets from China economically which is not largely replaceable (even if not easily).

But as things stand now, the U.S. still retains alarming dependence on China in foundational industries. The U.S. sources some 90% of the active ingredients in pharmaceuticals and antibiotics, 40% of its apparel, and 48% of its electronics from China, to name just a few. These vulnerabilities are not entirely surprising. Some consulting firms have been touting misguided projections of labor cost savings and supply chain efficiency and encouraging companies to offshore to China for decades.

The promotion of global business and economic interdependence beyond simple mercantile colonization has been a steady drumbeat of conventional wisdom since economist David Ricardos classic 1817 treatise popularized the theory of comparative advantage.

For decades, global interdependence has been celebrated, not criticized, in supposedly reducing political conflict. In 1996, New York Times columnist Tom Friedman confidently proclaimed that no two nations that both had McDonalds franchises would wage war. Sadly, that commerce shield from conflict was not true in Africa, the Middle East, or Central Europe at the time, and the 110 McDonalds restaurants in Ukraine and 847 McDonalds in Russia have since underscored just how naïve his sentiment remains today.

While the population interpretation of Ricardo holds that free trade between countries is mutually beneficial, presuming all bring their most efficiently produced goods and services to global markets, it does not anticipate the kind of global competition borne out of deep, fundamental differences over the value of freedom and human rights, disparate governing ideologies, and divergent conceptions of world order that is playing out today, as pointed out by several Nobel Prize winners in economics.

Against that backdrop, deep U.S.-China economic ties are hardly an infallible safeguard against conflict. Corporate leaders are now in plainly uncharted territory, and there is no precedent. The business exodus from Russia is an imperfect analogy considering Russia weighs less than 2% of global GDP, Russian revenues consisted of less than 1-2% of most Western businesses revenues, and Russia is no economic superpower. Meanwhile, China is one of Americas single largest trading partners. However, last year was the first time Mexico and Canada surpassed China as Americas largest trade partner in the last decade, with $735 billion, $732 billion, and $715 billion in total trade, respectively, speaking to the significant re-shoring that is already taking place.

With time and the concerted efforts of the business community, it is not impossible to unwind the U.S. and Chinese economies. After all, U.S.-China trade represents $715 billion compared to an annual $27 trillion U.S. GDP. Its equivalent to just 2.6% of U.S. GDPand less than 0.75% of a $100 trillion global GDP. In reality, it is a number of companies in certain sectors that tend to have the most outsized exposure to China.

With no clear playbook, C-suites seem to be muddling through largely along three vastly divergent paths: significant withdrawal, gradual scaling back, and inertia (or even expansion).

The first category, companies that are de-risking Chinese exposure by withdrawing, are few in number. So far, the only companies that are suspending any business are the ones that have been effectively banned from selling into China by government policy, in high-tech industries such as semiconductors or U.S. companies such as Micron that have been reciprocally banned by the CCP.

More companies fall into the second category of gradually and quietly scaling back their dependence on Chinese supply chains through re-shoring/friend-shoring of production. All Western apparel makers boycotted Xinjiang cotton in 2019 despite short-lived counter-boycotts by angry Chinese consumers even before the Trump Admin placed sanctions on all Xinjiang purchases, with first-movers including Nike, H&M, Levis, and Adidas.

More recently, Hasbros production in China fell by half last year as it moved production to Vietnam and India, Intel has invested $100 billion in new chip fabrication plants in the U.S. and Europe. Microsoft is starting to ship Xbox consoles from outside Ho Chi Minh City and Amazon is producing Fire TVs in bustling Chennai, India. Apple, which previously relied on China for 90% of its manufacturing, has accomplished a gargantuan task of moving up to 25% of its supply chains out of China and into India and Vietnam in less than two years. Seeing the writing on the Great Wall, even Taiwan Semiconductor has pledged to invest $100 billion in new chip production plants in the U.S., with the first two chip fabrication plants in Phoenix already approved and under construction for $40 billion.

What this shows is that if companies need to move out of China, they canfaster and more seamlessly than many would expect. But these shifts are generally still in the early innings, with supply chain surrogates such as Vietnam and India remaining underdeveloped, and companies are hardly rushing to broadcast their contingency planning publicly. U.S.-listed companies are not required to disclose supply chain exposure to China, so it is impossible to pinpoint with any accuracy how much U.S. companies continue to rely on Chinese supply chains.

Most companies fall squarely into the third and by far the largest categorythey are content to continue selling into China. Of the companies in the S&P 500 that break down sales by geography, we observed that well over half reported an increase in revenues from China last year despite stringent COVID lockdowns. The companies that are most exposed to China-related risk are doubling: Qualcomm is at 63% revenue from China and Texas Instruments at 50% and still growing. Other companies are trumpeting their expansion plans or freshly entering the country.

 Just a few months ago, BlackRock launched a set of mutual funds and other investment products for Chinese consumers, the first foreign-owned company allowed to do so, pouring billions into the country despite strident criticism. They are not alone: According to a survey by the American Chamber of Commerce in Shanghai, 30% of foreign businesses are planning to increase investment in China. In other words, despite some pullback, it is largely business as usual in China for most Western companies.

Some of these business leaders position themselves thoughtfully as forces of stability, peace, and moral conviction in improving U.S.-China relations. For example, the legendary Hank Greenberg of C.V. Starr commendably leads the Morefar Project, which builds on his personal 50-year history as an old friend of China to help re-establish a constructive bilateral dialogue. But not all CEOs approach their presence in China with such conscientious thoughtfulness. In many other cases, charging ahead with growth plans in China reflects poor risk management and default inertia.

The risks of U.S. businesses remaining so tethered to China are rising dramatically and rapidlywhile the economic payoff is becoming increasingly cloudy. The cost of Chinese labor has gone up arithmetically as China develops, while Chinas competitive advantages as a manufacturer are dropping due to supported by technological breakthroughs and government subsidies in the U.S. If anything, with elevated transportation and supply chain costs on top of tariffs, it is becoming cheaper to manufacture in North America. Even in areas where China supposedly has leverage, such as its dominance in certain rare earth mineral processing, that leverage is transitory as new processing facilities and supplies are developed across North America and allied nations. Indeed, not only can most U.S. interdependence with China be reversed or replaced but its also becoming increasingly economically efficient to do so.

A quote generally attributed to Yale-educated theologian Reinhold Niebuhr is God grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change, the courage to the change the things I can, and the wisdom to know the difference. Should U.S.-China relations become more confrontational, business leaders will have to de-risk their business supply chains and revenues away from China, no matter what they say today.

Jeffrey Sonnenfeld is the Lester Crown Professor in Management Practice and Senior Associate Dean at Yale School of Management. 

Kyle Bass is a Dallas-based asset manager who is a life member of the Council on Foreign Relations

Steven Tian is the director of research at the Yale Chief Executive Leadership Institute.

The opinions expressed in Fortune.com commentary pieces are solely the views of their authors and do not necessarily reflect the opinions and beliefs of Fortune.

More must-read commentary published by Fortune:

The CEO of Coty the French-American beauty conglomerate whose fragrance brands include Marc Jacobs, Gucci, Calvin Klein and Davidoff said on Sunday that despite challenging economic conditions, consumers were continuing to splurge on little luxuries like high-end cologne.

Earlier this month, the company reported strong third-quarter earnings, with 9% net revenue growth from a year earlier. Accelerated demand for premium fragrances, the firm said at the time, had helped drive the increase.

This category is booming in the U.S., Chief Executive CEO Sue Nabi told Yahoo Finance Live. Its 60% above pre-pandemic levels.

She added that the phenomenon was also being seen in Europe and China, which like the U.S. have experienced economic uncertainty over the past year.

People like these little luxuries, Nabi said. At the end of the day, even in an environment where people are constrained this kind of little luxury is something people are not ready to give up on. I believe that this category, and, moreover, the beauty category, is clearly one of the most resilient.

Certain categories of consumers, including Gen Z, men and the Hispanic community were rediscovering luxury fragrances, Nabi said, and driving the strength in sales.

She added that these consumers saw perfume and cologne as a form of escapism, as well as a mood booster and a form of self-expression and noted that they were spritzing their favorite scents more and more often.

[Theyre] spraying more, especially Gen Z, who use fragrances not [only] on their skins, they use fragrances on their clothes and outfits, she told Yahoo. So they spray much more, and its shortening the lifespan of the usage of the product. So thats what explains this boom both in volume and in value behind this market.

Fragrances that had benefited from young consumers love of smelling good included Burberrys Hero, Gucci Flora Gorgeous Jasmie, Chloe Atelier des Fleurs and Boss Bottled, Nabi said.

The lipstick effect

Thanks to the so-called lipstick effect, consumers often double down on purchases of small luxuries like beauty items during economic downturns, preferring instead to cut spending on big-ticket goods like cars and furniture to reduce costs.

Back in 2019, the then-CEO of LOréal, Jean-Paul Agon, told CNBC he was not worried about recessions because of the lipstick effect.

Meanwhile, after the 2008 financial crisis, beauty products became recession-proof as consumers saw the category as a joy factor, according to experts.

Last year, as the U.K. contended with its deepest cost-of-living crisis in decades, British consumers turned to premium beauty brands to maintain a little luxury in their lives while cutting down on other costs.

Ian Baer, a former ad executive and founder of strategic behavioral consultancy Sooth, told Fortune on Tuesday that part of the lipstick effects power came from consumers seeking control when their spending power was squeezed.

When it feels like theres so much in this world we cant predict, people have a tendency to seek control in specific aspects of their lives and personal appearance is always high on that list, he said. I may have no say in the future of my job or the next global health crisis, but if I can control how I look or feel at a certain moment theres a type of emotional salve that comes with it. When everything around us feels chaotic and unpredictable, there is tremendous power in controlling even tiny, predictable outcomes as a way of getting through difficult times.

Last years Inflation Reduction Act provided a federal tax credit of up to $7,500 to use toward an EV. Under the rules, a dealer can apply that credit to any leased electric vehicle, no matter where its made, to reduce a customers monthly payment.

Not so for people who buy an EV.

For buyers, only EVs made in North America qualify for the full tax credit. And only 10 of the 49 electric vehicles for sale in the United States this year meet that requirement. Even then, the EV must contain certain percentages of battery parts from the United States or countries with which it has a trade deal for the buyer to receive a full $7,500 credit.

Why the distinction between leased and purchases vehicles?

The Treasury Department says that in establishing the tax credit, Congress classified leased but not purchased EVs as commercial vehicles. Under the law, commercial vehicles are exempt from the North America manufacturing and battery-content requirements. The result is that people who lease enjoy a much wider selection of EVs that qualify for the $7,500 credit.

Lease affordability has surpassed purchase affordability in a J.D. Power index that includes total cost of ownership, said Elizabeth Krear, vice president of the EV practice at J.D. Power.

Many consumers have become aware of the difference and are capitalizing on it. In April, Krear said, leases accounted for 41% of all U.S. EV deliveries four times the percentage in December, before the new rules took effect.

Geoff Pohanka, president of a 21-dealership group in Maryland, Virginia and Texas, said he is anticipating an increase in leasing. Buyers, he predicts, will increasingly recognize that the tax credit will help defray the typically substantial cost difference between an EV and a similar gas-powered vehicle.

It definitely makes sense, he said. Incentives can move the market if that narrows the affordability issue between gas and electric cars.

Pohanka, whose group sells vehicles from multiple automakers, said the tax credits have just begun to lower the cost of leasing. Still, the rules governing the credit are complex enough that some buyers appear unsure if they would qualify for it. The rules not only make distinctions between leased and purchased vehicles. They also include income thresholds that disqualify some buyers.

To qualify for the tax credit, a car cannot cost more than $55,000. SUVs, pickups and vans cant exceed $80,000. And a buyers gross income must be no more $150,000 if single, $300,000 if filing jointly and $225,000 if head of a household.

Given the confusion he has noticed among customers about qualifying for the tax credit, Pohanka said some EVs are sitting longer on dealer lots than they otherwise would.

This disruption, I think, is very damaging to the momentum on electric vehicles, he said.

Critics, including some lawmakers on Capitol Hill, say they regard the Treasury rules that allow many leased, but not purchased, EVs to receive the full tax credit to be an unfair loophole. They argue that it benefits automakers that produce all their vehicles overseas and have yet to build EV and battery factories in the United States. These foreign manufacturers, they say, can devote themselves to leasing EVs in the United States at the expense of domestic automakers.

Sen. Joe Manchin, a West Virginia Democrat and a key author of the tax-credit language, wanted the North American manufacturing requirement to help boost U.S. manufacturing jobs. He included the battery requirements to incentivize companies to build a domestic EV supply chain. But Manchin says the Biden administration is circumventing the laws intent by allowing tax credits for vehicles manufactured overseas.

The administration continues to ignore the purpose of the law, which is to bring manufacturing back to America and ensure we have reliable and secure supply chains, he said in a statement.

Foreign automakers had complained that they were excluded from the tax credit for buyers despite doing what the bill intended building U.S. battery and assembly plants.

The Treasury Department denies creating a loophole and says it was Congress that exempted commercial vehicles from the manufacturing and battery requirements. When a dealer buys a vehicle and leases it to someone, it amounts to a commercial transaction. The dealer or a finance company receives the tax credit and retains ownership of the vehicle.

Eligibility for the commercial vehicle credit is a straightforward reading of the Inflation Reduction Act as written by Congress and application of longstanding tax law regarding leased assets, Ashley Schapitl, a spokeswoman, wrote in a statement. There was no room for Treasury interpretation.

Hyundai, with three EV models made in South Korea and for sale in the United States, is among the beneficiaries of the leasing provision. A spokesman for the Korean automaker said that leases amounted to 30% of its U.S. EV deliveries in the United States from January through March. In 2022, that proportion was only 5%.

The average monthly ownership cost on an EV leased for three years has dropped $403 since December, largely because of the tax credits, J.D. Power found. By contrast, for an EV purchase financed over five years, the average monthly cost has declined by only $118.

Hyundai is offering to lease an Ioniq 5 SE rear-wheel-drive EV for $499 a month for three years, though the customer must put down nearly $4,000. Buying the same EV would cost $865 a month for five years at the average new-auto loan rate of 7%.

Though it may be cheaper, leasing wont fit into everyones financial plans. Unlike with a purchase, monthly payments dont end when a loan is paid off.

Experts note, too, that not everyone who leases an EV will receive the tax credit, even if they qualify for it. The automakers and dealers are allowed to decide whether to pass along the tax credit to their customers; they arent required to do so.

Krear said some companies are passing the entire $7,500 credit on to qualifying consumers, thereby reducing their monthly payments. Others are passing on only a portion of it.

Eventually, as automakers make adjustments to comply with the North American manufacturing and battery-composition requirements, buying an EV could cost less than leasing over the long run, Krear said, though there are too many variables to predict when that might happen.

At that time, it will be a different playing field, she said.

The Dallas Mavericks owner, on Monday, threw a question out to the Twitter-sphere: Got a personal question for everyone watching heats vs celts right now.  Who is watching on a pirated stream.  Im curious how prevalent it is.

It wasnt long before Twitter did its thing and Narc Cuban began tending.

Nice try. Narc Cuban

Bucket (@thatchthoughts) May 30, 2023

Vote here

Austin (@AustinPlanet) May 30, 2023

Narc Cuban are you pirating the game?

Me:pic.twitter.com/wiQN2P5RnQ

Blake Garman (@FrostedBlakes34) May 30, 2023

this site may be dying but so long as we as a people can come together to tweet Narc Cuban at a midrange billionaire the soul still burns

Alex Navarro (@alex_navarro) May 30, 2023

Cuban was at one time, the majority owner of cable network AXS TV and HDNet Movies, but he sold those in 2019 to Anthem Sports and Entertainment. The billionaire didnt offer any additional insight into his tweet.

The billionaire has never been shy to express his opinions, though, especially on Twitter. In the past, he has slammed Donald Trump over the then-presidents comments on NFL players protesting during the national anthem. He has also teased political ambitions, claiming in 2015 he could beat both Trump and Hillary Clinton.

He has also been fined around $1.9 million in the past for 14 incidents relating to public reprimands of NBA referees and the league in general.