If the moderators will allow a summary of this article, submitted by another member but which I found very interesting in its method (many do recommend the Financial Times, I am seeing why...).
--
The author, Martin Wolf, concerned with an hypothesis that «the fracturing of economic ties will be both consequence and cause of deepening global discord»,
interpreting "globalisation" quantitatively as the value of "Global merchandise trade as a share of GDP", shows a correlation between deglobalisation and historic calamities in the past two centuries.
Citing English liberal Norman Angell as the proposer of the idea that «trade would bring peace», after having shown that the relation is more certainly its inversion (trade is a function of mutual trust), the author notes his other warning that «countries would gain nothing of value from war», to remark the recently confirmed caveat that rational action can only be expected from rational actors - «psychopat[ology]» and «dangerous ideologies» remain a factor.
The point proposed is that a new «great deglobalisation» may now be part of a catastrophic context, given greatly increased possibilities for destruction and the need for an «enlightened co-operation to sustain an inhabitable planet».
The idea of de-globalization as, possibly, a «relatively peaceful “decoupling” of economies» is countered in a statement that, differently from past experience, «China and the west are both competitors and integrated with one another and the rest of the world[: t]here is no painless way of decoupling these economic links».
A further point is that «High-income countries that trade less tend to have higher income inequality» (e.g. Belgium vs USA) - so an idea of some "gentle deglobalization" following some action towards equality is not evident.
The core, final point is that we are inside a spiral of distrust and deglobalization, that «will shape the fate of the world economy ... [seemingly] not towards a benign localism, but towards negative-sum rivalry», and that may have concretely destructive consequences.
--
The author, Martin Wolf, concerned with an hypothesis that «the fracturing of economic ties will be both consequence and cause of deepening global discord»,
interpreting "globalisation" quantitatively as the value of "Global merchandise trade as a share of GDP", shows a correlation between deglobalisation and historic calamities in the past two centuries.
Citing English liberal Norman Angell as the proposer of the idea that «trade would bring peace», after having shown that the relation is more certainly its inversion (trade is a function of mutual trust), the author notes his other warning that «countries would gain nothing of value from war», to remark the recently confirmed caveat that rational action can only be expected from rational actors - «psychopat[ology]» and «dangerous ideologies» remain a factor.
The point proposed is that a new «great deglobalisation» may now be part of a catastrophic context, given greatly increased possibilities for destruction and the need for an «enlightened co-operation to sustain an inhabitable planet».
The idea of de-globalization as, possibly, a «relatively peaceful “decoupling” of economies» is countered in a statement that, differently from past experience, «China and the west are both competitors and integrated with one another and the rest of the world[: t]here is no painless way of decoupling these economic links».
A further point is that «High-income countries that trade less tend to have higher income inequality» (e.g. Belgium vs USA) - so an idea of some "gentle deglobalization" following some action towards equality is not evident.
The core, final point is that we are inside a spiral of distrust and deglobalization, that «will shape the fate of the world economy ... [seemingly] not towards a benign localism, but towards negative-sum rivalry», and that may have concretely destructive consequences.