Anybody who thinks globalism would go away anytime soon has lost their mind. Globalism will be around about as long as we need global trade, which is probably forever.

Globalism doesn't just mean you make stuff in other countries. In many cases to compete in a region you have to build infrastructure there. To sell you commodities you need a 'commodity plant' and the logistics of having the processing plant near the materials and customers doesn't change all that much even with unlimited automation. You will always have globalism because you will always have modern trade and manufacturing and they will dictate these shared mutual development scenarios.

You want resource X, long term you probably have to give the source country a share of the industry, it's not an especially complicated idea and it's not going away.

It's also the single biggest form of wealth redistribution and normalization of massive wealth difference between nations. There has been no greater charity to the developed world in all human history than opening up the doors of globalism to break off the shackles of having developing nations closely tied to developed nations, which is how we did it before globalization and just meant more global poverty.

Isolationists may like it, but the end result is lower global GDP growth and that does come back to haunt the developed nations too in less of that awesome developed market growth where you see the biggest profit margins still. You also lose global influence with less global trade and industrial cooperate, which is all globalism means.

To be against globalism is basically to be against global trade and it's a rather ridiculous position. It's right up there with trying to blame thousands of years of human greed on capitalism. Like humans need capitalism to be greedy! We don't even need language to be greedy! We are greed incarnate!

This whole article is just complaining about how the present world conditions prevent the giant banks from making as much money. People in the West care more about democracy and freedom than making sure their richest can be sure to be able to get richer.

The anti-globalization crowd is really delusional. Many of them live in places that are disconnected from the rest of the country and the world. Conservatives have this idea that the US obtained absolute economic and social perfection in the 1950s and if we just elect the right politicians they can and will take us back to the post war era. Many people believe that the post war boom should last forever, that's just how things should be, we all should be able to have a giant home in the suburbs with a giant lawn and two clunkers in the garage and we should be able to afford that with a GED starting when we are 18 by going to work in some factory or warehouse or mine. They think if we elect the right Conservatives then they can and will reverse globalization and suddenly we all live in 1954 again. What they don't realize is that globalization is much more than just factory jobs sent to Mexico or China. Everything we do every day is the result of international commerce and intermingling of business and culture across borders and oceans. Globalization is in our banks, real estate, media, tech companies, pharmaceuticals, medicine, education, government, energy, everything from weed edibles to cat food to sex and in-between. We aren't going back to the 1950s. The reason globalization didn't happen sooner is because after WW2 our economic competition was literally blown apart and others were under the rule of socialism and we barely had any competition in manufacturing, construction, and services. Only people who have never left their hometown suburb actually believe that we are going to get back to pre-globalization economics.

The re-globalisation glimpsed in Davos will be fundamentally different from previous iterations

For the past decade, the steady demise of ‘Davos Man’ – the avatar of global business and cosmopolitanism – was the big story here, owing to the 2008 financial crisis, Brexit, Donald Trump’s election, democratic backsliding around the world, covid-19, and Russia’s war in Ukraine. All were seen as signs that globalisation had gone too far and would be thrown into reverse.

But the mood at this year’s meeting was slightly more optimistic. Despite much concern about conflict and economic strife, the world seems to be doing a little better than global elites expected when they last met in May. The Ukrainians are valiantly resisting the Russian invaders, the West is united, Europe has managed to keep the lights on this winter, and some think we might still avoid a recession.

Moreover, beneath these important short-term developments is a more profound shift toward a new form of globalisation, albeit one that will be quite different from what preceded it. While the globalisation of goods seems to have peaked, services are becoming ever more globalised, owing to the revolution in telework during the pandemic.

There is also an accelerating revolution in energy, driven partly by the war in Ukraine. European Commission president, Ursula von der Leyen, and Germany’s chancellor, Olaf Scholz, predict that the widespread adoption of renewables and hydrogen power will be as significant as the industrial revolution of the 19th century.

At the same time, advances in artificial intelligence (AI) are opening vast new possibilities, while also creating tensions over microchips and renewed fears about joblessness and rogue robots.

More true than not. The deglobalization team seems to want the world to go back to 1979, with cold war in full rage and all the money being spent to defense projects. But I m not sure that nationalist idea is particularly popular today. Even long-standing neutral countries like Switzerland and the Scandis are no longer neutral but willing to defend this US-led globalized order. And it make sense why

It is. Tech routes are changing. “Real men have fabs” is what countries are saying now. Because it doesn’t take a nuclear weapon to destroy your enemies when technology does it so much cleaner.

Read up on "singleton hypothesis" by philosopher Nick Bostrom. Basically, he predicts that human societies will eventually form a "singleton" - whether it's a single government or an AI that runs everything. The outcome could be good or bad depending on various factors. Bostrom argues that we've been trending towards higher levels of social organization throughout history and that technology, including mind-control tech, could play a role in creating a singleton.

[removed]

Globalism can work between democracies. In time politicians will realize this and exclude dictatorships.

Add in the shift in wealth and it gets really dark, really quick.

Can we remember that globalization is the result of increased international trade which itself was the search for cheaper wages (higher profits)?

I like the good bits of globalization and I don't like the bad bits. So let's keep the good bits and trash the rest.

First the big trend today is localism. It starts with rooftop solar and doesn't stretch very far out of town. Fairly soon all the power feeding cities will come from about 100 miles from city center. That is 100% generation, storage, and consumption is local. All that money stays in the local economy sparking economic growth.

My city (Toronto) is surrounded by local farming aimed at keeping us feed with good seasonal produce, local dairy, and regional meats, and poultry. Pretty soon vertical farms will start displacing all that produce imported from across the continent. Lab grown protein from stem cells will displace all imported meats except for the high end foodie bits.

When we toss in wide spread 3D printing we run into the 'make it where you use it' meme. You just download the file and print what you want where you want it. Since good atoms are forever you just need good recycling to keep making new stuff and unmaking old stuff.

The end result, as I see it, is a return to something like the Hanseatic League mixed up other city state eras. We have already seen that large cities have more in common with each other than with the countries they find themselves in.

I'd like to see one world government; it could start with the UN getting more and more power until they run things.