Globalization is evolving, but does not seem to be reversing

There is what one might term the good, if not sublime, globalization. For as long as there are vast disparities in, e.g., life expectancy and educational level across the planet, our tribe lives a life out-of-balance (in the Koyaanisqatsi sense), unfair, unstable, miserly, antediluvian. Good globalization means flow of information, capital, people, goods that is (or should be) the great equilibrator, restoring balance.

The other face of globalization is decidedly darker. It consists of what one might term conscious ESG arbitrage. Effectively pursuing short-term extractive profits by identifying global opportunities to hide environmental externalities such as pollution, exploit inferior labor conditions and benefit from poor governance systems (oligarchs and the like). Bad globalization means sharply raising inequalities within a region while modestly lowering inequalities between regions.

If localization was a person it would be the ultimate Jekyll and Hyde personality

There is what one might term the good, if not sublime, localization. For as long as one region lives at the expense of others, slurping (ultimately by force) resources and human talent from across the planet our tribe lives a life out-of-balance (in the Koyaanisqatsi sense). The good side of localization means that, by-and-large, communities in all regions become adapted to and live in equilibrium within their own ecosystems.

The other face of localization is decidedly darker. It consists of what one might term Ideology arbitrage. Effectively pursue narrow-minded, isolationist policies and otherization, based on politics, religion or other discriminating factors in order to prop and persist a sub-optimal power structure arrangement.

The bottom line on globalization/localization is that they are sufficiently ill-defined that every political agenda can find something useful. Yet as the above juxtaposition hopefully illustrates, it does not take that much to start being more honest, less obfuscating, about what we are really talking about.

Globalization just became "globalism," and remains a cynically anti-democratic and anti-nation state movement that is the expression of a totalitarian urge. It is not reversing, but its growth has taken a brief break. Its architects know it is going to cause conflict, and judging by what we saw of them in the first few rounds, I suspect they are only resting and organizing for the next phase.

The amount of money involved means that to tip that balance, you need a very strong, coherent and stable localist sentiment. The complexity of the system and the willingness of individuals to attempt to wiggle though to the minimum means you need a very strong, durable and controlling government to keep the unstable system together in a way that persists for a very long time: at least many decades and beyond. This is tricky to do when countries that don't enforce localism probably will appear to advance more and faster, and especially tricky when you think that the very people who want localism the most also probably chafe the most at the idea of a more centrally-controlled economy.

It's certainly more than possible that in the long, long run, the localist countries are the tortoises and the globalist ones the hares, but it's a hard sell to the public during that period when neighbours have ample food and electricity and infrastructure and you don't because you're still working on DIYing the supply chains.

1: this is a changing gradient: you might find that where the minimum is changes over time. For example what was once Germany² became Japan, then Taiwan and now China. This will continue, probably via South and SE Asia to Africa.

2: "Made in Germany" was originally an involuntary mark of an inferior imported product into the UK. Relevant in this context, because circa the 1880s, Germany had strong protectionist policies and thus had governmentally-forced local, low-quality and cheap (to other countries) industrial capacity. A century later and it's a mark of pride, so the tortoise is, if not in the lead, not doing too badly! That Germany was wrecked in the interim by two World Wars on the trot makes it hard to extrapolate that success onto other countries going forwards from the present.

The driving force behind globalization was the desire for cheap labor, the one component of the triangle that is most easily price-gamed. Of course, this doesn't affect trade between France and Germany, as moving a factory from one country to the other has no effect on production costs. In contrast, moving a factory from Detroit to Mexico, or to Indonesia, or to China? A 75% reduction in overall labor costs is all profit, minus shipping costs of course. Of course, it also drives down wages for those in the manufacturing sector while also shrinking that sector.

The other side of globalization with respect to labor is the import of cheap labor when it comes to non-outsourceable jobs like construction and agriculture, which again drives down the average wage in these industries (as migrants tend to work for less) - and this even extends to the tech sector, with the H1B Visa program being a point of contention. This also drives a political backlash with consequences (see migrant field workers fleeing Florida en masse at present, for example, as the state passes laws banning their employment).

Trying to write about globalization while ignoring the primary motivations and goals of the architects of globalization is kind of silly, and the main thesis - that modern manufacturing is just too complex to be done within the USA from start to finish - is just wrong.

There is no going "backwards" to continuing to find cheaper sources of labor, new markets, and greater availability of everything everywhere all at once. This has the long-term net effect of flattening all wages and prices globally.

The very design of the US military, especially the navy, has clearly indicated the US military will not be protecting this much longer. For China to continue shipping their junk to north america will take a huge increase in their naval power.

OP's graphs show clear stagnation since ~2009.

When Obama did his affordable care act, he found the USA was extremely dependent on Chinese pharma. He set the deglobalization trend going. Trump accelerated this into a trade war and Biden turned it into a cold war.

Where we are at now is that globalism is done; but the logistics systems aren't sure what to do. Container shipping is super cheap but the insurance and fuel costs are sky high so they are struggling to be profitable.