Here is a more down to earth perspective on the same subject:

"The Global Failure of Globalization
By Daniel Greenfield October 30, 2017 , 11:00 am"

"“We cannot allow to fall back into pre-globalization times,” German Chancellor Angela Merkel warned."

"Merkel was welcoming Obama back to Berlin for the last time. The election had been fought and won nine days earlier. And Obama and Merkel were defending globalism against President-elect Trump."

"To Merkel and Obama, returning to pre-globalization times was every bit as mad as going back to the caves. Globalization had become synonymous with civilization. And its prophets, like Thomas Friedman, traced back its rise to the fall of the Berlin Wall in the city where Merkel and Obama were chatting."

"But globalization didn’t bring down the Berlin Wall. Nationalism did. The pro-democracy activists wanted a country where the people had a voice. That’s the opposite of globalization in which there are no nations and only the influential figures of various stripes have any kind of impact."

"Globalization built the Berlin Wall to unite East Germany with a Communist bloc built around a set of political ideas that disregarded nations and individual peoples. Leftists had drawn a deeply misguided lesson from the fall of Communism. Rather than attributing the fall to the overreach of central governments and unaccountable bureaucrats, they developed a new postmodern historical materialism of globalism. The Communist bloc had fallen not because of too much globalization, but because there wasn’t enough of it. There were still too many borders and nations. And they all had to fall like the Wall."

"Where Communism had failed by being too narrow, globalism would succeed in creating a new world."

"By the time Merkel and Obama were mourning what Trump’s victory and Brexit meant for globalization, Berlin had become a wonderful laboratory for observing the end results of their philosophy. Haunted by the specter of national decline and falling birth rates, Merkel had opened her country’s borders to a million Muslim migrants who had flooded in from the Middle East and from as far away as Afghanistan."

"The migrants were supposed to supplement the German workforce. Syrians would build the Mercedes coupes of tomorrow, Pakistanis would put together Siemens ultrasound devices and Somalis would produce Bayer’s pharmaceuticals. There would be no need for Germany to continue exploring the Japanese model of smarter automation to replace a falling population. Globalization would provide."

"But the migrants weren’t coming to Germany to work. And they aren’t working. It’s still Germans and Eastern Europeans on the floor at Siemens, Mercedes, and Bayer. The “refugees” came for Germany’s generous welfare programs. And they’ve wrecked enough of the country that Merkel wants to pay them to leave."

"The welfare state so ubiquitous to Europe is there to compensate for the discrepancy between the expected standard of living and the declining options for earning that living. Globalization didn’t magically link together economies to create a new golden age. Its prophets, like Thomas Friedman, are being jeered as neo-liberals by a radicalized left looking more to East Germany than to Berlin."

"Globalization moved jobs and production to countries with the lowest standards of living, the least human rights and the greatest government intervention in their economies. It’s no wonder that China thrived or that America declined in that environment. But at the same time, it also moved immigrants with the lowest work ethic to America and Germany to benefit from the welfare programs that were meant to soften the economic impact of globalization on the native population."

"The old immigrants had come to benefit from a booming economy. But if you want a booming economy with lots of entry-level jobs, 21st century America is hardly the place to go. You can’t just walk off the street and get a manufacturing job that will take you up the ladder to the middle class."

"The West gets two kinds of economic immigrants these days: scroungers and hustlers."

"Hustlers can make their own opportunities. They’re the Koreans running local grocery stores and the Russian Jews starting revolutionary dot-coms. But hustling demands creativity, smarts and an ambitious work ethic. Most immigrants are scroungers. They get by on some combination of welfare and semi-legal marginal jobs. If they have an ambition, it’s getting a comfortable government job."

"Immigrants brought over as cheap labor quickly plug into the welfare state and become a net loss."

"Globalization exports jobs and imports welfare scroungers making it a double blow to the West. The outbound jobs and the inbound migrant swarms punish countries with higher standards of living and human rights by depriving them of both. It’s hard to think of any better way to destroy a civilization."

The true problem with globalism has nothing to do with trade per se. It has everything to do with enabling trade protections and special deals for the politically connected - ie cronyism. That is one of the primary purposes of currency manipulation as well: the Fed profits hugely (as do the politicians) at the expense of the middle class - those trying to save for the future.

I am all for global trade because it takes advantage of specialization, differences in labor rates, etc. and encourages nations to go with what they do well. (And I must also confess that my wife and I are particularly enamored with chocolate - which doesn't grow in the US. =D ) Everyone benefits and everyone can better their situation. It is when people start trying to control trade and funnel the benefits to the few that globalism becomes the nightmare.

Globalization is not sensible when national politicians have a clear incentive to use it only to political advantage. Corrupt national politics will never be repaired by globalized economics.

Crusoe concepts and household microeconomics express fundamental truths that apply to global enterprises. That said, it is important to keep the context clear. olduglycarl seems trapped in a kind of Jeffersonian utopia, sort of like Thornton Wilder's Our Town wherin we do not consider where windows, doors, shirts, and shoes come from.

I say, we don't need all these trade agreements or even the notion of a global community, since the internet, each individual can pretty much purchase what ever we need or want from anywhere in the world..."governments need not apply"...maybe that's the "Rub".

For the past two months, my work space faced a rail line. How much of the following did OUC buy on the internet?

=> CPRail coming up from Mexico with 12 cars of automobiles, 25 cars of truck frames, 8 box cars.
=> FerroMex going north with 19 cars of automobiles, 1 with sheet metail coils, 1 box car, 1 tank, and 25 cars of automobiles.
=> UnionPacific with over 70 cars of 53-foot containers about half stacked double.
=> Coal cars, and coal cars along with gondolas with cubes of scrap metal.
=> mixed empty hoppers, box cars, dry bulk cars, a tank, and 20 cars with automobiles

... not once in two months, but six, eight, ten, 20 times a day, every day...

A friend of mine who teaches art history took a special interest in the development of large numbers, like Five, because Fred Flintstone never knew the number 10. In ancient Sumer they developed writing to keep track of inventories owed in debt. It took a thousand years to invent the number 100. The Greeks had the myriad: 100 x 100. Even into the 20th century, the "billion" was not standardized with some nations using "milliards" and "millions." In Stephen Hawking's A Brief History of Time (1988) he is always explicit about a thousand million and a million million. It is very difficult for people to conceptualize the depth, breadth, width, and extent of global trade.

You problably know the Leonard Read essay, "I, Pencil." Dixon Ticonderoga makes a billion pencils a. year... every year... and that is just one company.

I am not an economist or financial professional. So please bear with me...what I am gathering from this article is that we should all be celebrating a decline in globalism (and resulting rise in nationalism), unless we are multinational importer/exporters. But I am confused as to the meaning of "globalism." Is free trade the goal of globalism, or just lip service from politicians appeasing economically ignorant common folk, so that big businesses can form collusive arrangements and have legislation passed cementing their lucrative trade advantages over their competitors? Is globalism essentially mercantilism in practice? Some of the wording in your article sounds as if you are against free trade, and would favor import tariffs and other taxes that would raise prices for the millions of consumers benefitting from low priced imports. If this is incorrect, and you are advocating free trade, unburdened by crony capitalistic trade deals, then I have misconstrued your meaning.

In other words: the jig is up, and friendly persuasion will no longer avail.

Get ready for more mass murders--most of which will be false-flag pseudo-operations intended to frighten people into surrendering their personal weapons.

The article is wrong in principle and therefore wrong on many points in claim. The entire post is easy to condemn from this: "Like the 19th century version of populism that rallied against the gold standard, today’s economic populism is similarly anti-establishment, anti-elitist, and opposed to all forms of globalization and globalist governance." As a professional numismatist, I know that the enshrinement of the gold standard by the conservative right in America ignores key facts about praxeology ("Austrian" economics). That said, however, the gold standard of the 19th century was fundamental to economic growth because it created true economic stability. The gold standard was opposed by populists who were ignorant of economics. They did not argue for a true free market in money, but wanted - and got - inflation: cheap government-issued silver tokens and paper promises for silver tokens. The Federal Reserve was not "the monster from Jekyll Island" but a logical outcome of populism. Look at a Mercury Dime. What is on the reverse? That is the symbol of populism.

"The benefits of international trade as originally argued by Adam Smith and its subsequent canonization ignores important historical differences. A displaced worker in our modern technological age (unlike a day-laborer or farmer in the 18th century) already has a home mortgage, car payments, tuition for his children, and lots of other overhead. Merely switching careers or retraining is not so simple for many people. Truthfully, it is more than difficult, especially for middle-aged workers who have generally worked one job and in one place."

Since the latifundists of Rome turned free farmers into debt-slaves or the urban proletariat, through the Inclosures of 17th century Britain (which spurred emigration to America), through the so-called (and putative) "panics" of 1837 and 1857 in America, workers have always had it rough... as have merchants, lawyers, and doctors... Nothing is ever guaranteed. The original post is predicated on the promise of guaranteed stability promise of both communists and fascists -- as they both inherited their philosophies from Hegel.

Perhaps the best reflection of the many errors in the title essay is encapsulated in this:
"There is no reason why all nations cannot articulate their individual greatness and in their self (national) interest interact in the world in a more peaceful and benign fashion."

In fact, history shows that this is not true, empirically. Objectivism explains why it cannot be true. It is required that such "global balkanization" (as Ayn Rand called it) must lead to poverty and, ultimately, I am sad and worried to say, to war.

Far-left folk singer Dave Rovics has several songs that put this article into musical form.