Thanks for the invitation. I do not know even if globalization could be reversed, in general, in the new international political scenario. In my opinion, a possible decrease of globalisation is not enough to justify its reversal. But, surely, globalisation is changing, according to the new challenges.

Regards

Dear, thank you for sharing. I think a little retraction is something like a correction of course. There is no turning back, as markets have advanced to levels that do not allow returns, and technological tools allow for all kinds of deals in this "global village." Greetings!.

Dear José

I think that although globalization is morally neutre, it have several problems to the quest for the common good of our countries. The possibility of interchange between peoples of differents cultures has done much to improve the access of countries marginalized from technology to actualize it. But at the same time some liberal agenda that work against a sane progress of the family in the same countries have got a lot of impulse from the UN and other organisms of the first world. I am refering to the difusion of abort, contraception, ideology of the gender, divorce and many other activities that undermine the authority of the parents on their children. This negative ideas have been preconized by the globalization of the culture of death in an imprecedente attack to the tradicional family formed by a man and a woman which educate to their own children.

As your Bloomberg inform said this antinatalistic mentality have had a very important impact in the aging of our populations that has become a source of great crisis in all the systems (education, jubilation, health care, industrial and agricultural production).

Then we may expect some reaction against this things that were righty perceived as a degradation of our quality of life.

Thank you to invite me to this question, although it is out my region but I can say :

The collapse of the Soviet Union has led to the US control of the global system and international relations. This provides the US with many opportunities to defend its own national interests globally and to challenge international legitimacy through marginalizing the role of the United Nations and ignoring the international law. Power and interests become the main characteristics of interstate interactions.

Regards 

Dear José, thank you for invitation!

Globalisation is an irreversible process. Nobody can stop it. 

But there are some developments in this process out of control. Like already mentioned above, the ruin of our environment, I would attach the climatic change, poor and rich are drifting apart, more conflicts are leading to violence instead of a diplomatic solution.

These are the challenges we have to pick up and lead to a good solution for all mankind and for our little planet.

Dear Aristidis, Vladimir and Aparma:

Thank you very much for your answers.

Best regards !

 Dear Guillermo, Pierlorenzo, Saeed and Rudolf:

Thank you very much for your answers.

Best regards

Hi José. This is one of those ironic situations, where people will complain no matter what. But like most of the other responders, I don't think globalization can be stopped.

First, the irony. Both left wing and right wing political movements have stridently opposed globalization. The lefties oppose it because they have a vague notion that globalization is a form of western imperialism. The righties oppose it because it takes jobs away from their home country, and moves these jobs to countries that have lower wages.

So which is it? In my view, globalization is the only way to end rampant poverty, in developing countries. My question to the "no global" movement is always, "as opposed to what?" How do developing countries develop, if not by selling products and services globally? Just remain isolated, and magically create a strong economy, even though this has not occurred so far? If isolated economies were so successful, then why was poverty in most parts of the world so prevalent, especially in centuries past?

As to why globalization is unlikely to end, it is because it benefits the corporations. You do not need a political effort to "create" globalization. It comes naturally. With improved communications, it is hard to PREVENT corporations from reducing costs in order to maximize profits, by taking advantage of lower cost labor in other parts of the world. Just like it is difficult to prevent a liquid from flowing to the lowest elevations, it would be difficult to block globalization. Every step of the way, you would have to erect artificial barriers, and the "liquid" will just find a new path.

This question is not of my specialty, and I only cite articles, which have been found on the Internet and I think well studied.

https://diplomacist.com/2016/11/20/global-anti-globalization-movement-is-misplaced/

http://www.sociostudies.org/journal/articles/140638/

Dear José Eduardo Jorge

Thank you for inviting me to participate in this discussion network.

• I believe that Telecommunications, the mass media and the Internet, facilitate the permanence of the Economic Globalization and the Free Trade Market.
• Economic Globalization always benefits the developed countries, and only rarely is this benefit seen in developing countries. I also believe and there is much evidence in this regard, which always undermine the underdeveloped countries.
• It seems to me that change is already irreversible and that if the conditions necessary to bring about radical change come to light, the first features of the change will be identified by the end of the 21st century, and changes in the Economic Model could be feasible and generalized until the 22 century.
• During the 21st century, changes can be made in the Current Economic Model, with a change towards the "Democracy and Humanization" of the Economy. That the economy looks more the human face and the real consequences on the quality of life of the majority of the people, and not only dedicates to look at the facet of the finances, the speculation and the wealth for a few to the detriment of many.

In the following link, you will find a publication that describes and argues a current current with a Human face, called "Compassionate Economy".

Http://www.revista-critica.com/administrator/components/com_avzrevistas/pdfs/614e2be7095b592e6fa589ff847dab83-958-La-Compasi--n--dic.%202008.pdf

regards

Jose Luis

Estimado José Eduardo Jorge

Gracias por invitarme a participar en esta red de discusión

• Considero que las Telecomunicaciones, los mass-media e Internet, facilitan la permanencia de la Globalización Económica y el Mercado de Libre Comercio.
• La Globalización Económica beneficia siempre a los países desarrollados y sólo en contadas ocasiones, ese beneficio se observa en los países en vías de desarrollo. También creo y existen muchas evidencias al respecto,  que siempre perjudican a los países subdesarrollados.
• Me parece que el cambio ya es irreversible y que si se llegaran a presentar las condiciones necesarias para generar un cambio radical, los primeros rasgos de los mismos se identificaran a finales del siglo XXI, y los cambios del Modelo Económico podrían ser factibles y generalizarse hasta el siglo XXII.
• Durante el siglo XXI, podrán realizarse cambios en el Modelo Económico Actual, con modificación en dirección hacia la "Democracia y Humanización" de la Economía. Que la economía mire más el rostro humano y las consecuencias reales en la calidad de vida de la mayoría de las personas, y no solo se dedique a mirar la faceta de las finanzas, la especulación y la riqueza para unos pocos en desmedro de muchos.
• En el siguiente vínculo, encontrará una publicación que describe y argumenta una corriente actual con rostro Humano, denominada "Economía Compasiva".

http://www.revista-critica.com/administrator/components/com_avzrevistas/pdfs/614e2be7095b592e6fa589ff847dab83-958-La-Compasi--n---dic.%202008.pdf

Saludos

José Luis

The globalization can't be reversed due to inter-dependency of economies of the World. Conserving local status, national interests, securing languages of a region - sometimes inhibit the process of globalization, but finally globalization tends to impact all the nations and society.

Globalization is changing, not going into reverse

Policymakers must ensure these new patterns are safe. One has to make sure the parts that are growing are safe and sustainable so that globalization evolves in ways that direct capital to where it has the most benefit for the world economy.

The following link is interesting to be visited:

https://www.ft.com/content/52cf8e18-0199-11e6-99cb-83242733f755

There is a debate regarding globalization. Although there are many advantages of globalization, but still there are disadvantages including environmental sustainability, inequality, labor conditions and rights, national sovereignty, and cultural and community impact. 

I do not believe in globalization in a world which unknows the mercy and the justice. For example, the usual ways to efectuate payments are from poor countries to rich countries. If technology is used only in this sense, poor gives to rich, I do not believe in globalization.

The global village is a fiction. There doesn't exist a global vision in the mind. The alienation, the gap is greater as ever. Time to go back to the roots and looking inside the brains instead of making superficial calculations of economic transactions.

There is an inner voice who says that political correctness is a dead street.

I think that globalization had started on a week base, on simulations and economic calculus, but not on people beliefs and involvement....

It's important that every people to benefit of globalization, to understand it and urge the things in this direction.

It seems that the 20-80% is now 10-80%, "thanks to" globalization. This means 10% of rich people it own 9o% of the whole world wealth.

Globalization is an old story. To remind; the political evolution in South of Europe, South Americas; or in Africa etc.  Today wars, political coalitions and control are intercalated with financial dominance which intends to be an autoreactive system following the route of know-how, money and productivity.  That pushes countries to change political view. What is produced in USA or in Europe can be produced today in China, Asia, or elsewhere. Under this optic, we might see that USA establishes Russia or Africa as a more profitable partner than Germany or Canada.  From the moment that the know-how is not an exclusivity, the system will definitely favor the one that has the money and/or dominates the low cost and productivity.  

The apparent failure of globalization is associated with the erroneous belief that freedom is a universal aspiration of the peoples. Yes, everyone wants to tend for themselves more freedom. But here we are talking about stability, not an individual or a family, but of entire nations, and countries around the world. The stability of the positive development of nations, states and the whole world will be ensured only when the exact balance between a high level of freedom and a low level of self-interest is found. In other words, if a high level of freedom, a high level of self-interest that we have today in the world, leads to the catastrophic instability. If we are not able yet to reduce the level of our self-interest, for the continuation of our global existence, we will be forced to limit our freedom.

Dear Colleagues:

Thank you very much for your interesting answers.

In the meantime, UK Prime Minister Theresa May announced in a major speech that her country "is leaving the European Union, and my job is to get the right deal for Britain as we do.”

But The Guardian dissects her speech and concludes that, since May's goals are "yet to be negotiated, and it is far from clear how much the EU 27 will be prepared to concede"., we "know more about what 'Brexit means Brexit' will not mean – but little, still, about what it will."

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/17/world/europe/brexit-theresa-may-uk-eu.html?_r=0

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/jan/17/key-points-from-mays-what-have-we-learned

Davos World Economic Forum confronts globalization revolt

The Davos Forum is underway in Switzerland and, according to this Australian publication, it "has never had such a challenge to its central dogma that globalism benefits the wealth and wellbeing of the planet and its inhabitants." It includes interesting results of CEOs and citizens surveys across 79 nations.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-01-17/davos-world-economic-forum-confronts-globalisation-revolt/8188960

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-06-20/verrender-is-globalisation-coming-to-an-end/7524732

This detailed Politico.com report on the possible Trump's trade policies notes that the election of the new US president "promises a new way forward that will be the most nationalist – and likely protectionist – that the United States has seen in nearly a century. The American political system—let alone the transnational elites now gathering in Davos, Switzerland—has not yet come to terms with just how massive the changes are likely to be: Trump’s policies will call into question the global investment strategies of U.S. multinational companies in industries ranging from autos to semiconductors, the global sourcing by large U.S. retailers like Wal-Mart and Target, and the global trade rules constructed under the leadership of the United States."

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/01/the-roots-of-trumps-trade-rage-214639

I have looked at this differently in a small study I conducted, see the article below

Article Globalisation and Construction of Local Culture in Rural Sri Lanka

I do believe that in new geo political scenario things are going to change and globalization will remain as defined and sought-after phenomenon as it was.. Every big country is now thinking to consolidate its own base and trade and trying hard to deceive and discriminate others in trade and business.. In this context globalization will be  re-analysed and re-defined to suite country specific needs in today's perspective..

Globalism has always had at its core an attack on the nation state. This article presumes that our labor based economy went to bed on its own. It did not. Globalists pilfered it, along with our laws and our water. Our Constitution cannot survive in an economically vanquished country, and cities cannot be mini nation states. I live half my year with rural people who labor and half in thinking, servicing cities; their perspectives have value for each other....

https://medium.com/@Richard_Florida/the-most-disruptive-transformation-in-history-80a50ef89b4d#.kuq5td266

https://medium.com/@andreasilverthorne/the-nation-state-is-the-best-form-of-government-ever-created-it-roots-in-love-of-a-land-and-its-7ce08796c17f#.x8eg9ldvu

Dear @Saeed, you do continue to do massive plagiarism!!!

http://www.grin.com/en/e-book/110500/globalization-and-politics-the-effects-of-globalization-on-human-life

Probably a kind of 'correction' will occur, but the main components of international trading cannot change so much. After all, companies will still search to minimize their production cost and sure they will find alternative strategies.

As for the science, it is by its definition an open process, so it will not be affected so much.

The labor market has not come to life in this time of globalization as a market of goods.

Will tomorrow's inauguration of Donald Trump will bring something new, will he revive Detroit?

Dear Ljubomir:

The article you linked about "The Most Disruptive Transformation in History" argues that the world is experienced two major disruptive changes:

1) A shift toward a knowledge-based economy, which "has advantaged roughly a third of the population and workforce, while the other 66 percent have fallen further behind."

2) A shift toward "urban clustering as the source of innovation and economic advantage," which "massively concentrates talent and economic assets in a handful of superstar cities and knowledge-tech hubs."

The author concludes that, consequently, "this age of urbanized knowledge capitalism requires a shift in power from the nation-state to cities, which are the key economic and social organizing unit of the knowledge economy."

On a similar vein, a recent article in The Atlantic focused, after the US presidential election, on "The Growing (Political) Urban-Rural Divide Around the World".

Many Democrats "felt robbed", the author says. "Hillary Clinton had won the majority of voters nationwide. But, like Al Gore in 2000, Clinton was hamstrung by the Electoral College, an institution designed to ensure a voice for sparsely populated states in America’s early years—and one that, of late, has spelled doom for candidates with urban-based coalitions."

The article adds: "The outsized influence of rural voters may seem like a unique feature—or bug—of the American political system. But a similar story recurs in places around the world. In over 20 countries, from Argentina, to Malaysia, to Japan, the structure of the electoral systems gives rural voters disproportionate power, relative to their numbers, over their more numerous urban-dwelling counterparts. "

https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2017/01/electoral-college-trump-argentina-malaysia-japan-clinton/512153/

Davos Forum: In Era of Trump, China’s President Champions Economic Globalization

"That a leader of the People’s Republic of China can stake a claim to the mantle of leadership in the realm of free trade speaks to the unforeseen, even surreal alteration of the global order in recent months," the NYT author says.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/17/business/dealbook/world-economic-forum-davos-china-xi-globalization.html?_r=0

Massive rollbacks are unlikely, but globalization as we know it may well become somewhat scattered or stagnant.

See opinion of Experts –

http://www.international-economy.com/TIE_Su04_Globalization.pdf

Globalization Doesn't Make as Much Sense as It Used To

Another deep analysis about the logic behind the forthcoming US trade policy. 

"America is about to change course on trade policy. That doesn’t necessarily mean a return to pre-World War II protectionism. It could instead simply mean a revival of the spirit that inspired the foundations of the postwar economic order. That spirit, articulated by the economist John Maynard Keynes, focused on assuring balanced trade—the avoidance of chronic surpluses on the part of some trading partners and chronic deficits on the part of others. Thus a new order might operate to prevent the misalignment of currency valuations, to abolish or offset the impact of tax subsidies, and to mitigate the implicit subsidization of state-owned enterprises."

https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2016/12/globalization-trade-history/510380/

Advances and setbacks make part of the development natural process. Even if with different velocities, globalization in the best human sense seems that cannot be stopped, at least since the Portuguese Discoveries and in current times.

Another point of view:

Everyone seems to agree globalization is a sin. They’re wrong.

"The best approach to the world we are living in is not denial but empowerment. Countries should recognize that the global economy and the technological revolution require large, sustained national efforts to equip workers with the skills, capital and infrastructure they need to succeed. Nations should embrace an open world, but only as long as they are properly armed to compete in it. And that requires smart, effective — and very expensive — national policies, not some grand reversal of globalization."

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/everyone-seems-to-agree-globalization-is-a-sin-theyre-wrong/2017/01/19/49bded68-de8b-11e6-918c-99ede3c8cafa_story.html?tid=a_inl&utm_term=.934c86ec7f44

Globalisation once made the world go around. Is it about to grind to a halt?

The Davos Forum thinks Globalization "is really being driven by technological change over which politicians have little control. Supply chains cross borders, often many times over. Consumers care more about whether the goods they can order online will be delivered the next day than where they are sourced from...".

"...The globalisation optimists may well be proved right. Unravelling the complex web of international links that have been established since the Berlin wall came down at the end of 1980s would be a long and painful process..."

"...That said, supporters of free trade have been their own worst enemies. They knew from the outset that globalisation creates losers as well as winners, but have done little or nothing to ensure that the benefits of greater liberalisation have been equitably shared. In recent years the losers have increased in number – and become more vociferous."

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/jan/21/davos-globalisation-trump-brexit-trade-wars

I think Teresa May said it correctly in Davos. It is time that the capitalist lands and their adherents need to answer the requests for help by those who are feeling themselves victims by either out-of-control or run-amok globaization of past 50 years. The mission now is to solve problesm caused by the most negatives facets of globalization.

Globalization, like development, is not inevitable – even though there are strong underlying political and economic forces behind it. By most measures, between World War I and World War II, both the pace and extent of globalization slowed, and even reversed. - Joseph Stiglitz

We have to solve the negative facets of globalization. It will be as difficult as to stop the climatic change. Almost all countrys need to work together and straight these countries, which have advantages of the status quo should change it (and pay for it!).

A very difficult, but also a very critical endeavour!

I think, many people are willing to do this, but big efforts and a lot of patience will be needed.

Yogesh, you are right, the globalization slowed down between  World War I and World War II in the same way, as new nationalism and protectionism grew up (with the known result).

Now we have a similar trend in different countries, I see this with increasing anxiety.

Dear all

An interesting series of opinions. However, many of them do not address what is likely - but what is desirable.

Getting back to what is might happen, one has to take a scenario planning approach. High likelihood possibilities, as well as low likelihood but high impact ones. I would venture to say that the most likely scenario is indeed the "cannot be stopped" one, favoured in most other answers. Nevertheless, I would not write off other possibilities. Short of cutting down sea bottom data cables and letting satellites rust, little can prevent the free movement of (dis)information. But several scenarios could be thought of whereby information is there for all to share, whereas the movement of people and goods could become seriously hampered. This would be a semi-de-globalised world. As for the data de-globalisation, one can also think of ways in which combined processes having to do with credibility and accessibility could impact on the current patterns. Looking at religious texts thousands of years old, one realises that the circulation of ideas was surpisingly good, without trains and planes and cars, as the song goes. But later on, there were repeated cycles when ideas where regionally supressed, and these regions acted as barriers. 

Certainly, interesting times ahead though.

Best

Serban

The gainers of globalization are the highly skilled citizens & the losers are low skilled workers . Those who have high skills gain this from expensive high quality educational institutes , which is available only to a minority . In addition , the high skilled workers migrate to the developed countries for good jobs . Unless good education is made inclusive & every citizen gets the opportunity to obtain this & is assured of decent jobs , there would be deep distrust of the system . Therefore , It is the duty of every government to take care of its low skilled workers by improving their skills in this highly complex environment & assuring  their financial security .

Cooling trend for globalization:

Whether globalization is now going into “reverse” remains to be seen though, but there are signs that the thirst for it is probably cooling. For instance, Chart 7 shows that the growth of international debt securities – one proxy we think for globalization – looks to have peaked in 2013...

http://www.valuewalk.com/2017/01/populism-banks/

Dear José,

Just this morning in the radio news all the trends you mentioned in your question were confirmed:

'' increasing policy efforts toward economic protectionism, barriers to immigration, ''

1.  Trump will put a tax of 20% on Mexican imports to pay the cost of building the wall to stop illegal immigration.

''growing emphasis on local, traditional values in contrast to cultural liberalization and diversity.''

2.  Russia is decrimilizing family violence: husband beating their wife.  Every 60 minute , a man kill his wife in Russia.  Since family violence is now criminal , the courts are filled with such cases.  Decrimilizing will solve this problem of the courts!!

Dear Louis:

Even in my country, Argentina, has started to gain momentum a discourse focused on immigrants from neighboring and African countries who commit crimes. This rhetoric is dangerous and may quickly become xenophobic. 

A big reason of minimizing/banning the immigration, is inequality in status of development in the parts of the world. The people/system in a better position, assume their system to be reason of their development. But along with of it, immigration of talented people - is also reason of their development.

Immigration of talented people also mean importing skill in their country. When skills are in thrusts, such immigration is more welcomed. When we think that our own skill is enough, then it is less needed.

Prohibition of immigration is not a practice of nations only. It can be thought within a nation also. I don't know the situation in other countries. But in my country India, developed states sometimes have mood to prohibit immigration of people from less developed states.

That is how I think.

Nothing is inevitable in the socio-economic world, and that is true for both globalization and the barriers erected to stem its many different flows. Both globalization and those barriers are social constructions, and they are constantly open to change, reconstruction, or deconstruction. It is safe to say that the future will bring with it a continuation of this dialectic, although the way it plays out will vary greatly from one locale to another and over time. That’s not much of a generalization, but it’s the best we can do in the case of globalization.

See "The world is mountainous: Globalization is in full swing. The best proof of this are the attempt to stop it."

http://www.theeuropean-magazine.com/george-ritzer--2/9342-why-globalization-cant-be-reversed

Trump could reverse globalization, says strategist!

When accepting his official nomination as the Republican candidate to be the next U.S. president, the billionaire businessman said "Americanism not globalization will be our credo" adding "We (the U.S.) will never-ever sign bad trade deals."...

Globalization should be fixed, not junked in age of Trump!

You know globalization is in deep trouble when its most visible defender is the man who leads the Communist Party of China.

China’s president, Xi Jinping, took on the unlikely role of champion of international integration when he went to Davos this week and warned the assembled elites about the risks of the course that many western countries seem to have chosen.

“No one will emerge as a winner in a trade war,” he said. “Pursuing protectionism is just like locking oneself in a dark room. Wind and rain may be kept outside, but so are light and air.”...

http://www.cnbc.com/2016/08/02/trump-could-reverse-globalization-says-strategist.html

https://www.thestar.com/opinion/editorials/2017/01/20/globalization-should-be-fixed-not-junked-in-age-of-trump-editorial.html

Dear Professor Jorge,

I agree with Professor Bonzanini that globalization has come to the point where there's no turning back.  The decline in international trade doesn't mean globalization has been reversed, but it's the nature of business that is cyclical involving the ups, stagnation, downs, and turnarounds.  Besides, domestic political instability in many countries may have caused the downturn.  

Protectionism in my opinion is more like a strategy that countries use to cope with their inability to "gain" in the game while the immigration issue is used as a political tool to appeal to patriotism to get votes and political support--also more like using immigrants as scapegoats when solutions to domestic problems can't be found.  I beg to differ as to me protectionism and immigration issues do not signify the reversal of globalization.

I read somewhere that globalization has been around even before the Silk Road, and in this present digital age, technology makes globalization unstoppable.          E-commerce, for example, remains robust across borders especially among small businesses. Knowledge sharing from every corner of the world at real time has also become part of people's lives.  There's no turning back.

Sincerely,

Cameen

There are also data that predict that we still have a 1000 years to go, the way we exploit our planet. The moral code in business is not yet good defined, as the ambassador of the United States in Belgium said: don't look at the principles but make a deal and the Belgian politicians are going.

Dear all:

Interesting report of Politico on the World Government Summit in Dubai. Some speeches may offer more slogans than answers --as the writer says-, but they seem to show the kind of consensus that may be taking shape.

--Klaus Schwab, founder of the World Economic Forum: "“We should not go back to neoliberalism, and say we want to fix the system by making it more inclusive. What we have seen is a revolution against the system, so fixing the system is not enough.”

--Christine Lagarde, managing director of the International Monetary Fund: "“We’ve been saying internationalization is great, global trade is great,...But we haven’t been so focused on sharing the benefits.”

-- António Guterres:, U.N. Secretary-General: "“Globalization has brought increasing wealth and improved welfare in general, but it also had its losses, Many people feel that they have been left behind, and that the political establishments of their countries have not taken care of them.”

--Jim Yong Kim, World Bank chief: "“It’s not enough to condemn xenophobia and populism; we need to engage with the root causes that make them fester.”

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/02/donald-trump-vs-globalists-dubai-214776

José,

In these four comments, it is Lagarde that came closer to name the unamable: ''sharing the benefits''.  Guterres  used the expression ''people feel that ...''  this is taking people as a bunch of idiots , they don't know but ''feel''.  These people are puppets of the system so we cannot expect real speech.  It is like expecting real speech from ambassador or sale people.  They are not real decider, if they would rock the boat they would be expell immediatly.

In speeches and tweets, Trump has aggressively lashed out against globalisation. He has appointed the famously protectionist trade litigator Robert Lighthizer to be US trade representative. And the other two members of his trade triumvirate – commerce secretary-designate Wilbur Ross and White House trade adviser Peter Navarro – are no less protectionist than Lighthizer.

Many working- and middle-class Americans believe that free-trade agreements are why their incomes have stagnated over the past two decades. So Trump intends to provide them with “protection” by putting protectionists in charge.

But Trump and his triumvirate have misdiagnosed the problem. While globalisation is an important factor in the hollowing out of the middle class, so, too, is automation. Most of Lighthizer and Ross’s business experience has been in twentieth-century industries such as steel production, which has conditioned them to pursue twentieth-century solutions for America’s twenty-first-century industrial problems.

Unfortunately, old-fashioned protectionism will not boost American industrial competitiveness, even if it saves a few thousand jobs in sunset sectors. Moreover, ripping up trade agreements and raising tariffs will do nothing to create new, high-paying factory jobs. If anything, tariffs will only inflict further harm on workers...

http://economia.icaew.com/en/opinion/february-2017/donald-trumps-anachronistic-trade-strategy-wilbur-ross-robert-lighthizer

Dear Ljubomir and readers:

As you say,, globalization is just a part of the problem and automation --among other factors-- is a major culprit of the weakening of middle class and growing inequality. New technologies are creating a "winner-take-all" economy and Artificial Intelligence is making increasingly substitutable many professional jobs. See the interesting MIT Technological Review article on the issue.  

It is unlikely that protectionism can solve the problem. Instead, it is possible that the government will have to do something to create new jobs while technology continues to destroy them.  See, for example, Jeffrey Sachs's point of view in his new book "Building the New American Economy" (link below).

https://www.technologyreview.com/s/531726/technology-and-inequality/

https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2017/02/the-economy-is-not-doomed/517482/

Dear all:

We thought that this reversal trend could involve some re-emphasis on traditional values.

@Louis already mentioned the decriminalization of family violence (husband beating wife) in Russia.

Now we find another deplorable example: 

A Polish nationalist member of the European Parliament may be punished after he said women "must earn less than men because they are weaker, smaller and less intelligent".

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-39152562

http://www.dw.com/en/weaker-smaller-less-intelligent-women-deserve-less-than-men-polish-mep-states/a-37794898

Life scientist Antentor Hinton and laser physicist Carla Faria discuss inspirational Black scientists, the pros and cons of diversity panels and mentoring styles in the latest Science diversified podcast. Both emphasize the need to manage the tension between doing diversity work and focusing on your research. “I have to balance power and time,” says Faria. “Otherwise, you're going to be sacrificing your whole scientific career at the altar of diversity.”

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-00168-y

In 2016 we had Brexit and the election of Trump. Some anti globalist backlash then went on. Then 2020 came along with COVID BLM and censorship as a globalist push back with woke culture And Biden election. The West and the US are divided at the middle. 20 percent of the population is doing very well economically with this globalist agenda but 50 percent are not. So the political battle is not over. The woke with their dissolution of nations and high immigration has currently the upper hand but censorship and propaganda is not going to bring us back to a new consensus for globalisation. What will happen is largely unpredictable. My optimistic scenario would be a slow and plan agenda towards de-globalisation whose tectonic plates would be civilisational. A return to the old empires.

Until the elite of one country thinks about their own enrichment through enslaving their own citizens and the elite of other country thinks about domestic welfare and human rights of their own citizens, harmony, consensus and parity between these elite can be bound to fail.

University leaders have clashed over the future shape of cross-border research collaborations in the wake of mounting global geopolitical uncertainty, with some stressing that the strain on international ties “will only get worse” if all academic links are severed with countries that are perceived as threats, such as Russia, and others advocating a break with institutions that “do not share the same values”...

https://www.timeshighereducation.com/news/university-leaders-clash-over-future-research-collaboration?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=editorial-daily&spMailingID=22065042&spUserID=MTAxNzcwNzE4MTk2NAS2&spJobID=2092464533&spReportId=MjA5MjQ2NDUzMwS2

“The English and the French have not a single memory in common. Everything that London suffered with pride, Paris suffered in shame and despair. It is important for us to learn to speak of ourselves without emotion,”

― Jean-Paul Sartre, Paris Under the Occupation https://www.goodreads.com/author/quotes/1466.Jean_Paul_Sartre

The reverse of globalization will go very far and lead to chaos in economic and political relations between states. This chaos, in turn, will lead either to the establishment of a new balance of power within human civilization, or to the disappearance of human civilization itself. Mankind is trying to perform an acrobatic stunt on the edge of the abyss without being a professional acrobat.

Nikolay Korolyov, "Master and Margarita"/Bulgakov/

https://yandex.ru/images/search?text=%D0%9D%D0%B8%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%BB%D0%B0%D0%B9%20%D0%BA%D0%BE%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%BB%D0%B5%D0%B2%20Master%20and%20Margarita&stype=image&lr=193&source=serp&pos=0&img_url=http%3A%2F%2Fmir-s3-cdn-cf.behance.net%2Fproject_modules%2Fmax_1200%2F18073013427527.56034e3a60222.jpg&rpt=simage

"I contend that we are the first race in the world, and that the more of the world we inhabit the better it is for the human race. ... If there be a God, I think that what he would like me to do is paint as much of the map of Africa British Red as possible".Cecil Rhodes https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Cecil_Rhodes

How to build geopolitical resilience amid a fragmenting global order

Organizations need to strategically invest in capabilities, people, processes, structures, and technology to navigate the risks arising from an evolving and fraught geopolitical landscape...

The orthodoxy of globalization is under strain. The latest salvo: multiple disruptions triggered by Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. The world seems to be tethered to crisis, or the threat of it. CEOs need to know whether they can still remain global players and, if so, how...

https://www.mckinsey.com/capabilities/risk-and-resilience/our-insights/how-to-build-geopolitical-resilience-amid-a-fragmenting-global-order

Social media users have been sharing a quote about divisions in the world and misattributing it to former South African President Nelson Mandela. So did dear Irina Mikhailovna Pechonkina .

This is the quote: “Our world is not divided by race, color, gender or religion. Our world is divided into wise people and fools. And fools divide themselves by race, color, gender, or religion.” An example of the misattribution can be seen...

An online search shows that the quote came from human rights activist and United Nations representative Mohamad Safa. Safa posted it on Twitter and Facebook on Aug. 6, 2020...

https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-factcheck-quote-divided-world-nelson-idUSKBN26X1Y3

https://twitter.com/mhdksafa/status/1291490665604493313?lang=en

https://www.facebook.com/mhdksafa/posts/our-world-is-not-divided-by-race-color-gender-or-religion-our-world-is-divided-i/693435314568397/

Dear Dr.Ljubomir Jacic,

Thank you very much for https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-factcheck-quote-divided-world-nelson-idUSKBN26X1Y3 ! Mohamad Safa is a man of genius!

"[In-group exclusivism has] killed more human beings and destroyed more cities and villages than all the epidemics, hurricanes, storms, floods, earthquakes, and volcanic eruptions taken together. It has brought upon mankind more suffering than any other catastrophe." ~ Pitirim Sorokin https://www.azquotes.com/author/43688-Pitirim_Sorokin

"We live in a world where there is more and more information, and less and less meaning." ~ Jean Baudrillard https://www.azquotes.com/author/1049-Jean_Baudrillard

"Alone we are savages, together we are civilization" #Quote by Ashok K. Banker https://quotesinsight.com/topic/civilization-quotes/

“There are no longer even any masters, but only slaves commanding other slaves; there is no longer any need to burden the animal from the outside, it shoulders its own burden. Not that man is ever the slave of technical machines; he is rather the slave of the social machine. The bourgeois sets the example, he absorbs surplus value for ends that, taken as a whole, have nothing to do with his own enjoyment: more utterly enslaved than the lowest of slaves, he is the first servant of the ravenous machine, the beast of the reproduction of capital, internalization of the infinite debt. "I too am a slave"—these are the new words spoken by the master.”

― Gilles Deleuze, Felix Guattari https://www.goodreads.com/author/quotes/13009.Gilles_Deleuze

This is globalization in reverse

If globalization was supposed to bring the world and its economies together, “fragmentation” is the term for how they’re splintering apart...

By “fragmentation,” (economists) are referring to a breakdown of the kind of free-wheeling, border-crossing trade and investment that’s defined the global economic order over the past three decades. It is a form of deglobalization — rebuilding fences around national or regional fiefdoms...

https://edition.cnn.com/2022/05/24/politics/globalization-trade-tariffs-what-matters/index.html

Gilles Deleuze

Only thought is capable of inventing the fiction of a State that is universal by right, of elevation the State to the level of de jure universality https://myquotes.co/authors/476/?page=2

Dear, thank you for sharing.

In my opinion, the effects of this backlash against globalization could be significant, depending on how far it is taken. Economically, we could expect to see a decrease in overall global growth, as nations become more inward-looking and put up barriers to imports and exports. This could lead to an increase in prices of goods, as well as a decrease in employment due to less competition from other countries. Politically, we could expect an increase in nationalism, xenophobia, and anti-globalization sentiment. This could lead to a decrease in international cooperation and collaboration, as well as an increase in conflict between countries. Socially, we could expect to see a decrease in cultural diversity, as well as a decrease in the acceptance of different cultures and lifestyles. This could lead to an increase in social unrest, as different groups fight for their rights and identities. Finally, science could be affected in a number of ways. We could expect to see a decrease in the number of international collaborations, as well as a decrease in the flow of scientific knowledge and research across borders. This could lead to a decrease in the overall progress of science, as well as a decrease in the effectiveness of science to solve global problems.

Life

A Journey through Science and Politics

This book is a vital contribution to literature focused on the human predicament, including problems of governance and democracy in the twenty-first century, and insight into the ecological and evolutionary science of our day. It is a must-read for anyone interested in understanding global change, our planet’s wonders, and a scientific approach to the present existential threats to civilization....

https://yalebooks.yale.edu/book/9780300264548/life/

From prehistoric early period to now, the localization is turning into globalization which is irreversible as it seems. The countries are being interdependent and economic sanctions are also a kind of war today.

Large industrial units seek large markets which is possible by globalization only.

In recent years, the security risks associated with international research collaborations have received increasing attention, to the detriment of the research community. Proactive state efforts to fight academic espionage or the nefarious intentions of other state powers have been particularly obvious in countries such as Australia and the United States.

However, the political discourse is also changing in some of the countries with the greatest academic freedom in the world. In the Nordic countries, for example, there has lately been increased scrutiny of international research collaborations, especially those involving researchers in China, Russia and Iran...

https://www.universityworldnews.com/post.php?story=20230331134218147&utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=GLNL0733

The U.S. is faced with increasing competition from new science-based economies in Asia and Europe. How can the U.S. maintain its position as a leading science and technology power?  This new report from the Scientific Information (ISI)™ at Clarivate draws on Web of Science™ data to shed light on the trajectory of research in the U.S. over the last 15 years. While it remains a leading science and technology power, the U.S. must acknowledge its shrinking domestic research capacity and work pragmatically with resourceful competitors to maintain its position in global R&D...

https://clarivate.com/lp/us-research-trends-the-impact-of-globalization-and-collaboration/?utm_campaign=EM1_InCites_ISI_GRR_US_research_trends_LeadGen_Product_AG_Global_2023&utm_medium=email&utm_source=Eloqua

Academics face scrutiny of contact with foreign peers

"The Russian government will continue to tighten control over the communication and cooperation of local university professors with foreign academics, according to recent statements made by representatives of the state and sources close to leading Russian universities..."

https://www.universityworldnews.com/post.php?story=20240202152804975

US-China science pact on hold again?

"A key symbolic agreement between China and the United States to cooperate on science and technology looks set to put in a holding pattern for a second time. The decades-old pact, which is usually renewed every five years, was due to expire on 27 August last year, but was given a 6-month extension. Now it appears it will be given another short-term extension to allow more time to settle amendments requested by both sides. The agreement lays the groundwork for cooperation on research in a broad range of fields, including health, the environment and energy. Observers worry that science will suffer in both countries if the pact is not renewed..."

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-024-00380-6

Another security law proposed as academic exodus continues

"A new security law proposed by the Hong Kong government outlines seven national security offences and also adds new ‘state secrets’ prohibiting disclosure of economic and social information or technology and science deemed important to the security of Hong Kong or China – which academics fear could constrain research.

Academics said such specific references unveiled in the proposed law last week could dramatically affect the way research is conducted in these fields, including international research collaboration under a new crime of ‘foreign interference’ in Hong Kong and national (China) affairs, for fear of falling foul of possible national security rules..."

https://www.universityworldnews.com/post.php?story=20240207111612329

On lying politicians and bullshitting scientists

"As indicated by this title, this post focuses on the toleration of lies by politicians and scientists, but the topic is more general. “Lies” blurs into “incompetence” (recall Clarke’s Law), and “politicians and scientists” blurs into “anyone who’s trying to sell you something.”..."

https://statmodeling.stat.columbia.edu/2024/05/05/on-lying-politicians-and-bullshitting-scientists/

· Universidad Nacional de La Plata

Dear José,

Your question is very important. I think the dimensions of today’s globalization reflect the end of Capitalism. This system is dead. We are going to follow the collapse of a huge Junk civilization build on false information and the criminal need of “FEW” to control the world. This is not going to happen. The diversity is essential for the survival and evolution of life.

I will be in Argentina in October, I hope. My daughter is coming to Buenos University from Ecole Polytechnique in Paris for few months. So, let’s start the revolution!!!

Warm regards,

Vassilis