The phase of globalization is surely nearer to its end!

[CTO114]

Globalization surely used to be the other of the day, as countries aligned, formed trade alliances an depended on each other, before the last five years, we surely witnessed an era where globalization was prioritized; produce and trade where is cheaper.

What the world is witnessing now is quite different; there's emergence of tarrif wars, regional supply chains and most recently economic nationalism.

Countries no longer prioritize affordability or cheapness, their priorities have shifted to political agreements, security and security.

Surely survival is replacing efficiency, as a result, goods are more expensive, supply chains are duplicates, as we start to see globalization being reduced to nothing. This shift will surely be more evident for the next couple of years

[uneng]

Do you really think USA, China and Russia will stop negotiating with each other? Tarrifs are more like blackmail to reach a better agreement in the future, and not exactly to cease economical partnerships.

Indeed, there is a lot of mistrust in the world right now, and even countries which used to be allied are already hostilizing each other, but trade is inevitable in a world where money talks.

The ideology of the world is money.

[joniboini]

I'm not sure who define globalization as working together with other countries to be honest. As far as I can recall, globalization is basically the removal of distance between one countries to another, which means they can interact through other means quite easily. People mentions cultural export, economic partnership, and so on alongside stuff like tariff wars or international sanction since years ago. I feel like OP definition is a bit too limiting and nobody thinks the same way.

[rat03gopoh]

I don't see this as a sign of the end, but rather as part of a new world order (fragmented globalization). It's not just blocs of countries forming new alliances, but also how large companies are opening new production centers in regions perceived to have more stable geopolitical conditions in the long term. If countries have strategies to maintain their economies, companies also need to maintain their markets.

[viljy]

I am of the opinion that the fragmentation of the world into economic regions, and probably currency regions (for example, dollar, yuan), is more of a good thing than a bad thing. Because it reduces the power of corporations, including the control of people's minds by online corporations such as social networks. So the fact that Schwab's globalization did not take place is a blessing. Although this does not guarantee people's lack of control over society by regional corporations. But at least there won't be global planetary corporations.

[bubilas]

Globalization surely used to be the other of the day, as countries aligned, formed trade alliances an depended on each other, before the last five years, we surely witnessed an era where globalization was prioritized; produce and trade where is cheaper.

What the world is witnessing now is quite different; there's emergence of tarrif wars, regional supply chains and most recently economic nationalism.

Countries no longer prioritize affordability or cheapness, their priorities have shifted to political agreements, security and security.

Surely survival is replacing efficiency, as a result, goods are more expensive, supply chains are duplicates, as we start to see globalization being reduced to nothing. This shift will surely be more evident for the next couple of years

There is a very noticeable trend now for each country to try to respect its sovereignty as much as possible and build its domestic economy as much as possible so that it does not depend on other countries for imports. We saw a vivid example when US President Donald Trump showed how politics can have an impact on countries by cutting off technologies or resources, and these are both tariffs and sanctions, and therefore a strong state that knows how to extract resources for itself (if any) and with well-thought-out sovereign technologies. And as a great example, I would cite China, but it is also dependent on the situation with the Strait of Hormuz and oil supplies.

[imthegreat]

Each country strives not to depend on others, because it develops its own domestic products and technologies (such as the automotive industry) that will allow it to provide a lot of work to the domestic population and use resources. And at the same time, these countries do not want to be heavily dependent on those countries that export cars to this country. But, unfortunately, due to the high level of corruption, such countries (for example, Russia) cannot develop a domestic car industry because it is an unaccountable production that does not compete with anyone, as large car companies in South Korea do, but simply this industry in the Russian Federation is a pit for money. Which the government is constantly pouring huge funds from the treasury into, but it doesn't do any good.

[Die_empty]

No country is an island; they will always need each other to survive. Globalization is as old as man, but it has been made easier by technology. Kingdoms or nation-states were trading with each other from antiquity. The internet and other technological inventions made international trade and partnerships easier.

Tariff wars, sanctions, and economic blockades have always been used by powerful nations to push their agenda. But it seems Trump has made these instruments his main tool to push his interests. Globalization is not ending because of an individual; his tenure will pass, and these extreme economic nationalism policies will be replaced.

Every nation has its competitive advantage, which means we will always need each other to survive.