The spectre of three big trading blocs spooked participants at the 14th Pacific Economic Co-operation Council meeting here last week.
One expert in regional economic co-operation, speaking on the sidelines of the meeting (clearly, he was sent off for bad behaviour), said he was more worried about smaller trading blocs, or bilateral free trade arrangements.
Australian National University economics professor Christopher Findlay said the problem with these let's-be-friends bilateral deals was the deal you did with country B to get more market access for your widget Z could cause country C to storm off in a hissy fit and severely curtail market penetration opportunities for the rest of your alphabet.
(Unfortunately, as a free port with nothing else to offer a suitor in return for a sweeter deal herself, Hong Kong must remain the wallflower while other countries couple up - or rely on the kindness of former strangers, that is, the mainland).
But back to size and why it matters. Small blocs, it appears, can cause even more dire problems than big ones.
'I think the biggest risk is not [three big trading] blocs but with all these free trade agreements, the new ground is going to be covered in gravel, we're going to be sliding and slipping all over the place,' said the laconic professor, adding with a laugh, 'We are talking about the risk of gravel rash.'