“The more reliant we are on others, the less resilient we are as a nation”

There is a happy medium somewhere in between complete globalisation and complete isolation.

(4) dependence on other, potentially hostile regimes on “national security” imports/products like steel, chips, oil, energy, …

I cannot speak about the UK, but in general this isn't all that people are dissatisfied with about globalization. Very many are angry about the loss of a sense of home. If you examine the situation in purely material terms, you won't observe or measure those feelings. For others, the loss of home extends to a loss of community, which extends to a loss of self.

Educated tech people can be software engineers first and English second, while the lower classes are, in my experience, English first, and their profession second. The loss hits harder for them.

I haven't seen media discuss the identitarian dimension of globalisation. I suppose that has to do with media being populated primarily by one social class. Yet I feel that by ignoring them they have been burying nuclear waste for decades.

I don't mean to tell you whether these emotions are "abhorrent racism" or "valid", I just mean say that they are to me the elephant in the room in any discussion of globalisation.

If we have to go to war than so be it. People will always argue and there will always be consequences of these arguments.

Global trade isn't the same as globalization. You can trade fine with others without relying on them. So your discussion about lifing people from poverty should include how specifically interdependence between countries as opposed to improvements in technology amd trade relations has resulted in poverty reduction.

We don't have to look far, because of globalization, a potential conflict between taiwan and china is the current biggest threat to global peace. TSMC is building factories in the US and India as well as apple trying to get out of China specifically to avoid global interdependence. TSMC plans to supply US demands by US fabs. But apple will face the same issue in other countries if or when conditions become hostile.

We don't live in a world where every country is working together for the progression of mankind. Each country looks out for itself. This means banning US tech companies from operating in Countries like China but allowing them to outsource labor there. Anyone from the rustbelt or former industrial towns in the US will tell you the impact of outsourcing labor (greedy business finding a way to to pay people less).

Another consideration is the impact of automation and how cheap labor is needed less and less so why not make stuff locally?

It isn't just poverty that reduced but the wealth of the few top rich businesses increased by many orders of magnitude because they got around tax and labor laws thanks to globalization.

My argument is you can still have free trade and innovation without giving up your sovreignity as a nation or looking the other way on tax and labor laws or undermining local labor unions.

People who believe in globalism should’ve taken your advice thirty years ago — but after destroying families for two generations, they’re going to fall on the managerial class like feral animals seeking blood.

The managerial class in the West will be executed for betraying their nations — and we’re past any way to stop that.

Why is it people only give your wise managerial quips after disasters, but never proactively?

In other countries doing the providing. It didn't do as well for the ones doing the dependency ones - except in transfering welth and competence outside, and to a small minority people on the inside getting mega-rich from this outsourcing, and a quite larger but still small minority of people benefitting from related jobs.

Hence the "hollowing out of the middle class in the US", with the majority of the middle class and working class getting the short end of the stick, and a much smaller part of it and the upper middle class improving their lot.

(And the overall impact of this process softened or hidden entirely for a good while through cheap money published and going around as credit and QE)

Now we know it doesn’t work, and this historic reason for globalization is moot.

On the flip side, I also see the reluctance or resistance of individual countries to said globalization and interdependence as one of the major reasons for the increase in armed conflicts affecting those individual countries.

On the contrary, I think this exception disproves the rule.

That was from a 1999 book by Thomas Friedman.

"Shortly after the book was published, NATO bombed Yugoslavia. On the first day of the bombing, McDonald's restaurants in Belgrade were demolished by angry protesters and were rebuilt only after the bombing ended. In the 2000 edition of the book, Friedman argued that this exception proved the rule"

-- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitalist_peace#Golden_arches...

You also have the Russo-Georgian war, Russia's seizure of Crimea, and various other conflicts depending on your definition of war - US invasion of Panama, conflict between Israel and Lebanon, the Kargil War.

In general, if you are relying on something Thomas Friedman said for your argument, you are almost certainly wrong.

Less personally, in Accidental Superpower, the case is made that the west's insistence on free and safe trade over international waters has helped to broker a long stretch of mostly peaceful time - precisely because it creates these interrelations that become important.

Edit: I guess if everyone was born radically self-reliant we might not learn to care. But no one starts out that way.

There are dangers to our already-declining reliance on China, but also benefits. The big one is that countries with deeply entangled economies rarely go to war with each other. A world where we don’t rely on China for anything is a world where we are more likely at war with them.

“Security means not depending on anyone else” is just off-the-grid survivalism writ large. It’s true in some very narrow sense, but it is also naive to think it’s even possible, especially while continuing to pursue any other goals.

Conversely if the supplier of salt and aluminium has a government that is acting in an immoral or oppressive way, then the dependence of other nations upon that supplier would seem to reduce the likelihood and magnitude of coercive action that might be taken by those nations.