Distributed, Decentralized, Resilient, and with redundancies. That is what we need. No centralized control of anything. Also, no to WEF with their creepy stakeholder capitalism nonsense. No ESG, no stakeholders, no group of people trying to control everything.
Exactly. Especially, unelected people should not have any say in how countries run their own countries. If they wish to have a say, they need to get elected by the people in each country.
@Nemusis 999 that would be fine but the west has stolen and marginalised Africa and many Asian countries for years. Even transfering jobs to the east as they are to cheap to pay western wage's. I agree with much of what you say but all western countries then in turn have to bring the jobs back to the countries they are based and pay taxes to those countries also
@Петро Ґ I understand the misunderstanding. I read it like that myself first time through. So many words have been assocaited with large topics that just the use of the word sometimes gives a false context. @Nemusis 999, good try but your point was a little buried in two topics in one post I believe, I could be wrong on that.
Does growth need to be the only driving goal? If economies are a little sluggish but nobody is starving or losing their homes, the only tragedy being rich folks can't get richer as fast as they like, why wouldn't that be acceptable?
There has to be constant growth because the money supply is constantly growing. Stop partaking in fractional reserve banking and divert from our debt based financial system and its possible. Were screwed by design
@@ricardosmythe2548 I don't care how you rig the game. When the civilization collapses under the weight of this top heavy economy you're going to be dinner.
Davos: “You will own nothing, and be happy”. I’ll trust in them when there is more mobility from lower to upper, and ownership of assets increase for middle class
The middle class is being eradicated. They only want the Surfs and Masters. This is a shift of wealth away from middle class to the Masters as simple as that!
Social mobility tends to suffer under conservative governments and all the evidence points towards people becoming increasingly divided and right wing.
Globalization, where everything is concentrated and depends on 1 or 2 places or nations, sounds like a dichotomy for the concept of global: through the whole. Maybe it's time to put an end to the stupidity.
The disdain for the US is thinly veiled by the presenters. Too bad everyone is coming late to the table. We have folks like Peter Zeihan who have been forecasting this breakdown of globalization for years.
Globalization did not arise in the last century because humans learned to be more civilized and cooperative, it arose because the US had the will to largely subordinate its interests to a rules-based order over and the power to enforce that order over and above the strategic interests of lesser powers. The US appears to no longer be interested in maintaining this order, and without such a power enforce the rules, globalization cannot exist. Freed of the consequences of transgression, states will resume pursuing their local interests and grievances, just as Russia is doing right now. Can China fill these shoes? No, absolutely not, it has neither the means nor the will to do so. China's economy is collapsing, its population is about to collapse, and its navy cannot project power beyond even its immediate shores. Moreover, the idea of China consenting to sacrifice its own interests in order to guarantee international rule of law is frankly absurd. China is an authoritarian state that fails to follow even its own domestic laws. Globalization is over and regionalization will take its place.
Interesting take. As much as the criticism against the US military industrial complex is warranted, people take for granted the stability of the part 70+ years. It was for the betterment of all. Europe never had to spend any money on weapons/military, and instead could focus on rebuilding, and developing their people. Russia shows what happens to a country/culture that's stuck in the past century. So much spent on the military, yet the majority of their people enjoy a very low standard of living.
@@garthy4u Yes, well-publicised excesses, like Iraq or Afghanistan, are easily perceived and felt, while the reverse is true for the effects of the conflicts that don’t take place because they were avoided. What we have been living in, which appears to be ending, is called the ‘long peace’ in history and IR. While the resulting ability of countries to focus on development rather than security is called a ‘peace dividend’.
@Nemusis 999 I agree that change through trade has totally failed to foster democracy. I’m sure the US will continue to support the order in some ways, but I don’t see it make huge efforts to guarantee it anymore. Guaranteeing requires willingness to make major sacrifices and enter enter conflicts if needed, which seems to difficult now. Perhaps I am wrong, but Trump’s Nationalism and Biden’s speedy Afghanistan exit have persuaded me otherwise. I would not say only US allies have become addicted to trade with the main fascist powers. The US has an enormous trade with China, for example. I agree we need to stick together.
What Europe needs is to do is to separate itself away from American warmongering. The US has been seeking conflict with Russia for decades now and European countries have been so witless as to agree with the US's catastrophic schemes.
@@kirstinstrand6292 How have the two supported US warmongering? I remember only too clearly how both opted out from the Iraq War, much to then chagrin of Dubya and his merry band of neocons.
We, Europe, need to step away from anything non related to democracy. Stop trading with dictators, One by One and the renewable energy will make this possible.
The U.S. isn't a warmongering Nation. Far from it, it was prop up at a World-wide Security Force by the U.N. The U.S. hasn't been itching for a war with Russia/Soviet Union either. We realized it war neither could win. It funny how the bad apples keep on repeating history. Just saying.
Globalization is seen by many people as a polite term replacing Imperialism. Globalization seems to serve the same people that Imperialism has served. Can the people, that own most of the planet, help us all between sips of champagne in Davos? I do not know. Moreover, I will not hold my breath waiting for the self entitled to help.
No, there IS a critical difference between Globalization and Imperialism. Globalization is a WORLD Order, whereas Imperialism is sequestered systems where the economics are almost entirely contained within the territory of that Empire. Very little trade goes outside of it, as Empires didn't trust each other enough to rely on each other for critical goods. Globalization is the opposite of that, where nations are all relying on each other in a global network where nations specialize in this or that industry and those industries sell to everyone else in the world. Empires are similar, except that they typically only sell within the territory of the Empire largely due to protectionist policies. The European Empires prior to WWII worked exactly like that. There was some trade between them, but all critical components were kept in house, so to speak, because they didn't trust each other. In such a system something like Airbus in Europe could never exist. The competing Empires would never trust each other enough cooperate in building complex machines whose components are sourced from the various Empires. The end of Globalization is just that. Because of numerous reasons, not the least of which is shrinking populations, nations can no longer rely upon each other for critical needs. The last time wheat prices seriously spiked, the so-called Arab Spring happened with numerous governments being overthrown in the Middle East. With the Ukraine war, both the first and second biggest wheat producers in the world are getting knocked offline AT THE SAME TIME, and their biggest customers are in the Middle East. The consequences are likely to be much bigger than the Arab Spring. The shrinking demographics around the world (China in particular) is causing a shortage of labor AND a shortage in Consumption. International Supply Chains are becoming destabilized, and it was always going to happen. Covid just sped things up a bit.
@@Seastallion You are absolutely right. Globalization is not the gunboat economics of imperial times. But it does allow one to produce cheap t-shirts in the collapsing factory in Bangladesh. As a world order globalization should assure global standards so that the workers in Bangladesh do not die, but it does not. Imperialism was the imposition of the powerful over the weak. Globalization is the taking advantage of the desperate by the powerful. Imperialism allowed the Empires, now politely called the West, to enrich themselves by fleecing countries that lacked the means to defend their interests. Now we have globalization and the descendants of the Empires still take advantage of weaker countries, only now it is polite. I benefit as a consumer from globalization as my ancestors benefited from imperialism. I just feel better because I did not send a gunboat.
@@stevekontis8992 There is something to that, but at the same time, those workers in "Bangladesh" wouldn't have had better paying jobs (they'd still be on the Rice farm or whatever), and the country wouldn't be able to benefit from the income to build better infrastructure, etc. Those Bangladesh workers wouldn't have cell phones with internet access and possible schooling to improve their situation. Without the western investment, they'd still have been dirt poor and with no possibility of upward mobility. It's not as though the business relationship is one sided. Yeah, the business elites are making out profitably, but they aren't the only ones. In reality, it's the Middle Class of the developed countries that get screwed in favor of cheaper labor. Only now, much industry is coming back replacing the cheap labor overseas with even cheaper automated machinery. Textiles in particular are returning to the US leaving the overseas labor without those jobs now. So would the workers in "Bangladesh" be better off with the foreign business leaving their country alone now?
@@Seastallion I will not argue with that. I just think that globalization means globalization. Globalize standards. Why should I, who works in an environment with health and safety standards, benefit from the cheap labor of people who do not enjoy the same benefits and protections. What exactly are we globalizing? I believe in globalization and will applaud it as soon as I see it.
@@stevekontis8992 That is the only reason Globalization works. If the workers overseas were enjoying the same standards with the same environmental regulations, THERE WOULD BE NO GLOBALIZATION. There would literally be no point. The only exceptions would be in raw materials that couldn't be gotten elsewhere, and that wouldn't be Globalization either. It would just be international resourcing, but only as necessity required.
I find this topic both very interesting and amusing at the same time. Amusing because the host and his guests are young and might not remember when ‘Globalization’ was introduced by politicians and corporate sharks as the way into the future in order to create a more free and prosperous people. When in fact the people of the 90’s and early 2000’s marched on the streets protesting against it knowing that the only prosperity that this was to bring were to the world’s elite. And it did. The gap between us and them has expanded beyond imagination. Of course the majority of the western worlds population could never have possibly been wiser then our elite. So here we are. And here we are. And all I can say is that we told you so. Which of course is sadly pointless.
Are you saying the the rest of us have just stayed the same, that only the elite has become richer? Would you rather have it that everyone is poorer but with smaller gaps in society? I feel that this is the ever present dilemma and I'm not sure what the solution would be
'We told you so' what? What did you tell us? That we would go through a global pandemic and a climate collapse?, which is where we were this time last year. (No one, practically no one, is going to remember just how close we came.)
I'm sure you wouldn't have that phone or the same opportunities you currently have neither would I without globalization... we won't have cheap and diverse food as well you can see the signs already with food prices and shortages
The rise in the wealth gap has a lot to do with changes in domestic policies (changes in tax structure, policies, regulations, social programs, spending priorities etc. to favor the wealthiest over the middle class) Automation also plays a role. Blaming trade or immigration or cultural change or any of that stuff for the decline of the middle class is mostly a distraction. That said, a rapidly growing economy will generate more millionaires, and that isn’t necessarily a bad thing, as long as its coming from overall growth and not from policies that gouge the middle class.
Yes, I recall all the warnings about outsourcing manufacturing to China, but profit was the driving force. Now the US is no longer capable of making much of anything.
In principal globalisation has the potential of increasing the prosperity of all, however by ignoring political reality it can have a darker consequence. The other issue is the way globalisation has been implemented has increased unrest in the developed world, even if its has improved the developing world. The final issue is the rules under which globalisation operates is based on the overwhelming military power of the US. With the rise of the developing world the relative strength of the US decreases and the rules under which globalisation can work is weakened. The way we have implemented globalisation is self-destructive. The more successful it is, the quicker it will crumble. The short term decline of china actually will strengthen globalisation as china will be more reliant on globalisation to overcome its economic issues. However this is temporary and the self-destruction of globalisation will continue. As for the issue of bottlenecks, these are all short term disruptive effects which can be resolved even if they cause a short term hick up in the system. As for the future, I have no idea but I suspect the world will start dividing into trade blocks or alliances. What has happened to Russia is a good example. The sanctions against Russia are only supported by the anglo-sphere and some of its closest allies, such as Poland, japan, etc. The bulk of the world, by population, is not part of this. 8 members of the G20 do not support the sanctions for example. We are already seeing the birth of trade blocks based on political alignment and i suspect this will grow.
First go to other countries genocide on them loot them as much as possible take that wealth to your countries and store it there design rules by which all others will play in a way that benefit you the most try to open the markets of other countries so that your pvt companies can earn more and when other countries which were first looted through their hardwork start beating you in your own game start whining about it.
8 members do not support so why d you need 20 members and 20 opinions if you want them all to be same. Also who sanctioned USA for Iraq, Somalia, Libya, Afghanistan.
@@siddeshnaik2296 True, which is why the current rules based global system will collapse, if it has not already collapsed. We will be going back to a world of major power blocks, similar to the early 20th Century. Each will contain its own trading block, for the simple reason trade will once again be a tool each block will use in its conflict with the other blocks.
@@marczhu7473 You raise a good point and while I have never considered this idea, its very possible China did want to create its own power and trading block, divorced from the one created by the US in 1945. However I suspect China has not thought it through to that point and are simply chasing short term objectives. A China trading block would not benefit china’s current manufacturing focus, unless China was pivoting to a consumer based economy. Only time will tell.
Except, that's NOT Globalization. Economic "blocs" is precisely what Empires prior to WWII were. Those Empires rarely traded with each other, and competed for limited resources which led to wars. The Global Order created by the US via the Brettonwoods Agreement after WWII was an attempt to change that, so everyone could trade with each other freely, with Security guaranteed by the US. Both national security and shipping security. The US played international police, forcing everyone to play on the same side, even countries that don't like each other. That is going away. Those "blocs" (Empires) will start competing again for energy and other resources necessary to maintain modern life.
Regional blocs make sense. VS: Produce raw materials and ship them 1/2 way around the globe. Factory produces the goods, with the corporate headquarters 1/2 the world away. THEN, ship the finished goods 1/2 way around the world. Ok.
This sounds way too much like 1914 all over again. I really thought the 21st century would be peace at last. The movie Dr. Strangelove is more reality than fiction. DW Thank you for these excellent programs even though it looks to me like the human race is going nowhere fast. I was born in the late 1940’s.
When we hit 1910, people knew that we were in 'Strange Times'. There was a foreboding in the air.Then it kicked off. WW1 moved seemlessly into WW2. What can you do? This is a good channel.
@@jonspambottomly4105 Thank you for your contribution. A great channel indeed. I concur WW1 & WW 2 were the same war. Since the Atomic bomb the Great Leaders do not declare war anymore. Like the USA in Korea & Vietnam & Russia in Ukraine it is correctly called Special Operations. The USA has been involved in several Special Operations and they lie and call it a war. Only congress can declare war according to the constitution. Lets see what China can do now to take back Taiwan. Endless wars ( special operations) until we can finally unleash Hydrogen Bomb Missiles to bring World Peace.
@@jose98937 Thank you for your contribution. Yes I am very fortunate to be born in the USA in these times . This may go down in history as the best time to be alive ever. And soon after I was born the United States did special operations in North Korea then they did special operations in Vietnam. The USA lies and calls them a wars but only Congress can declare war according to the US Constitution. I am in great times right now with all the Internet and information we can get and still we have many special operations all over the world. Of course it’s the same thing as war. When was it ever really any good? To be a cynic or pessimist like I am I call it being a realist. Being an optimist must be a wonderful thing I call it denial. Not just thinking of myself I feel so bad about all the people who have to suffer under the great leaders in our world.
We need to start buying less junk and make what we have last longer. Then we can afford to pay higher prices for locally produced products that give jobs to our citizens.
Say that to the average young family struggling to make ends meet. It's all very well to have noble aims and virtues but the majority of people can't afford to or just don't care about the future of the planet.
@@Auriflamme My point is that if people were willing to pay more for local products and services, then people could live decently even from non-skilled jobs. Personally I am tired of dealing with automated tellers and voice navigation systems. I’d be willing to pay more to have human tellers and phone operators earning a decent wage.
Sure. But there is another reason people buy and throw away things very soon. It’s the technological benefit new products promise. Some are just marketing but others are real. Still, having better quality would make it viable to change the old product to the new version for a fair price. The customer gets the benefits of the new product. The producer can use the old one as a resource or refurbish them to make cheaper offers for people who don’t need the newest versions. Then trash would be minimized too. And the company actually has a healthier customer base.
Instead of dumping all the manufacturing eggs in one basket (China), pick 5 high pop countries and divvy up the load. Nigeria, India, Indonesia, Bangladesh, Philippines, Vietnam, Mexico, plenty of high population areas that could support lots of manufacturing. This way, if any one goes down (name your crisis), the others continue operating. Right now we see China do covid lockdowns and lots of the world stops. China has too much of the world's industry.
The reason China was chosen is because the western world in the second half of the cold war wanted to pit China against USSR and hence pumped their economy it is politics that decides economy not the other way round
Or maybe just move as much of the manufacturing as possible back to the EU and then automate the heck out of it. Push automation as far as possible, everywhere it's possible. We're already having a worker shortage in the EU so pushing automation to the extreme wouldn't kill too many jobs. In the end what we really want is to become more resilient and especially not dependent on authoritarian countries like China and Russia. We've trialed it for some decades now and all we ended up doing was giving up a huge chunk of the Western competitive and technological advantage to countries like China almost for free. China made full use of the "technology transfer" and gained the technologies for free, which western companies had spend years of R&D and money to perfect.
Manufacturing should be localised wherever possible. Globalisation is extremely wasteful in terms of resources it only makes sense because of the currency systems we use
I believe that, in these events, ultimately financed by large corporations in the world, everything that is discussed boils down to how to achieve or strengthen the power of these large corporations.
IMO each country should be able to sustain itself as much as possible then import/export things they don’t have or produce excess of. Obviously it would be easier for larger countries but it would help minimize an incident having a catastrophic effect on a country not having what it needs. The on-demand type of ordering has now been shown to have too much risk when it comes to important products like micro chips. Hopefully lessons learned.
shortages of microchips was a result of de-investment in manufacturing during the pandemic, and it will take time to recover regardless of source. It has nothing to do with geopolitical issues or trade wars. There is only a handful of microchip manufacturers in the world.
@@faris7000 Covid sped things up, but it was always going to be an issue. The Global demographic implosion was going to see to that, which is itself a direct consequence of Industrialization. Nearly the entire industrialized world is aging beyond their capacity to maintain their industries on the levels needed to maintain Globalization. China is the fastest aging country of all thanks to their One Child Policy and cultural bias towards having sons resulting in mass selective abortions of girls. As a result, 40 Million+ men in China will never get married and have a family. China's population may be half of what it is today by 2050. The situation is worst in China, but they aren't alone. Most of the industrialized world stopped having children in meaningful numbers and nothing can fix it. It takes 20 years to grow a 20 year old, and urban living makes raising children expensive, so people don't particularly want to. Ultimately, the world is going to have to find a new balance between demography and Industrialization and that is going to take time. Immigration is not a long-term solution and only a handful of countries are even capable of doing that well. China certainly can't do it, or more to the point, won't.
Can the people be convinced that sustenance is better compared to abundance? With current inflation, there are so many pressure for politicians to "do something" to combat inflation. Imagine not buying cheap products from abroad, would the people accept even worse inflation?
Removing their production in East Asia means losing their influence in the region as well; in short, China would have more influence in Asia eventually which something US trying to prevent to happen.
@@princedukenkanteen2636 That would be good for Africa, and if that happen, hopefully, they'll be in control not other way around like what happen few decades ago. But the only problem I see in Africa is that governments are pretty unstable; too many coup.
thats the core problem why there cant ever be peace on earth. usa want to isolate china russia which are 2 super powers that have their own view and interests and when you push them into a corner for too long something gonna happen. its sad that usa seek world dominance and try isolate 2 super powers cuz russia china know excactly what usa doing to them, even india feel the pressure
@@encabsss Take businesses back to Europe so that Europeans can work. Businesses with production, not only services. This reasoning that you and many others have, building our factories in poor areas of the world and selling them in Europe and America MUST stop. You and others like you have destroyed us. If Africa after 40-50 years becomes strong enough, then people like you are going to say "let's move our businesses/factories somewhere else". No mate, you are totally wrong with this kind of thinking
It was a bad idea from the start. Allowing capitalists to not only move manufacturing to cheaper labor areas but allowing the same people to move their profits to no tax areas only serves to make the rich richer. We can can't make everything ourselves but we can make a s much as possible. If you trade in a country you pay tax in that country.
It's a bit sad, because there was a huge opportunity to do it better from the start. Just once again drives home the importance, nay the very meaning, of the term "sustainable". Quite simply put if something is not sustainable then it will come to an end. If a long term risk analysis ignores the sustainability involved in such an important thing as global trade then there is something wrong.
Your guest Anahita Thoms works for Baker McKenzie which is classified by the International Consortium of Investigative Journalism as "an architect of the modern tax avoidance system" listed in the Panama Papers for its work in promoting and enabling offshore tax avoidance. This alone should have disqualified Anahita from having a platform on your show. Globalisation for WHOM?
Some veteran European leaders talk about isolating Russia, but they frequently call Putin behind their backs, giving Putin a strong hint as if Europe is afraid of Russia. Military victory is the only and reliable way to end the war once and for all. At present, Germany and France are very slow to synchronize with several countries in Eastern Europe. This may pay a certain price for their future politics
We do not have free trade now. Part of the problem is the largest oil reserves are sanctioned by the US. How do the corporation's leave globalisation when nearly everything produced is made in China. Chinese wages are to high for the slave running Apple etc.
German industry is what made sure to make Germany dependent on cheap Russian gas. When economics get to decide how things are done, without reasonable control of a government to prevent becoming to reliant on one source, of course it will end badly. Especially when that party you are dependent on is an autocracy. And we see similar bad signs in world trading as well, of course it has to be under control.
This is not the end but the evolution and transformation of globalization. Globalization 1.0 was equal to westinization and the evolving globalization 2.0 is multipolar in nature. Interesting times ahead.
North America and Europe need to look south. Moving production to Latin America and Africa would benefit local economies and help to ease immigration stress.
They will, somewhat. Unfortunately for Africa and Latin America, geography will still make all the difference. Some of them will have opportunities, but parts of Africa in particular are going to get bad. Large segments of the world will begin de-industrializing. Especially significant parts of Asia. Quite possibly China, which is already suffering food shortages, which is why they banned the export of fertilizers a few years ago. They may very well force people to leave the cities and move BACK to the farms to avoid starvation. Rice farming is labor intensive, and is really gardening in that great care is given to individual plants. That takes a lot of people to do. Plus, China is the fastest aging population in the world. They won't be able to maintain their current industrial level.
Globalisation can work, there are countries that has more of a specific reasource than others. What needs to be done are guarantees that these countries wont be distabilized/invaded by a hostile country.
Not possible, the US invades somebody, what are you gonna do? Cry at the UN about it? Declare war on nuclear superpower? Laws are meaningless when you can't enforce them.
@@cetaepsilon need to study history, don't you. Lice, diseases very short life spans backbreaking work just to feed your self and your family, constant wars, 4 out of five babies died before the age of 5, slavery the norm, women dying during childbirth along with the babies, starvation and famine are regular visitor, most people drank wine because the water was undrinkable, the list goes on and on.
@@cetaepsilon Even basket cases like the American South have an average lifespan over 75. In the UK lifespan in the "glorious" 50s was 69, but it has increased to 81. Admittedly the self flagellating UK choosing Brexit and Boris will not help matters.
We cannot continue normal trade relationships with Russia and China, especially Russia right now. Russia needs to be 110% isolated until they stop the war and pay for the rebuilding of Ukraine and Putin is brought before The Hague.
@Nemusis 999 Funny u say that. Who is paying Russia in billions on a daily basis in gas and oil payments. Stop financing Putins war. As far as trade is concerned China is responsible for covid and uyghur genocide but China is largest trading partner of EU as well as US. Hypocrisy at iys peak.
Global trade results in manufacturing misalignments. As local politicians exploit those misalignments, everyone is damaged. As costs to business increase, businesses should contemplate coming home, with a mind to not making the same mistake. With green energy and country wide policies to ensure local manufacturing, let us hope that the West forgets trying to deal with thugs. And, we all know who the thugs are. Sustaining de-globalization means forgetting making commitments to governments that resemble Chicago mob theory. The future is deglobalization - and the faster the better.
In a way, end of globalization may be cool. Diversity is more natural anyways. Some form of competition will be good for material products and for every local economy.
An end of globalization will lead to more aggressively closed boarders, more competiticion over resources, poverty and less social mobility. So much of the prosperity over the last 70 years has been driven by globalization and we don't have the infrastructure to deal with a sudden collapse of it (people will suffer).
I think it is safer to link one's economy with those who are considered allies. This way if conflict does occur, your economy is not as likely to be crippled by a sudden lack of supply related to a vital component or raw element. So, I think globalization will continue to some degree, but with a lot more care. There may also be a group of nations and factions who trade with one another and avoid others. For example, I can see the U.S. decoupling from China quite a lot in the future. I'm not saying that the U.S. will stop buying from China, but almost anything of a strategic nature will not be purchased from them. I also don't think that Europe will be buying things like gas from Russia in the future. Russia is far too likely to use that in blackmail to help it achieve political and military goals. Some countries of course will try to play both sides (like India) but it is unlikely they will receive the same trade deals as others because they will be viewed as an external party who isn't quite to be trusted.
Globalization will work if countries follow the rules like fair competition , human right , democratic government , worker rights, transparency, respect for others, common values etc
Good luck with that. It's a nice thought, but naive in regards to human nature. Piracy and Drug Cartels exist because humans aren't angels. Left to our own devices and given no reason to behave, humans can be, and often are, barbaric.
It is not the end of globalization but it is a real threat to a Dollar as a global reserve currency and the sanctions are to blame for the slow death of a Dollar.
Geoffrey Bayamukama The US $ is no longer trusted as a global reserve, since it lost oversight due to Quantitative Easing FIAT money enforcement, build on just military might, and imperial suppression.
Europe needs an energy revolution to start with and a second industrial revolution. The Le Pens and Orbans we have spread accross Europe thrive in de-industrialised, low employment regions. These threats to a free, democratic and peacefull Europe are then subsidised by countries like Russia that have an interest in destroying the unity and values of Europe. Values in world trade should matter.
President Trump had warning nato, but nato countries just laughed.. And now things happened in front of your very eyes.. Not 2 rely on Russian gas, and china supply chains..
Not deglobalization but decoupling from dictators. The further our energy dependency is reducing because of improved renewable energy the more likely to happen.
@@wokeaf1337 it doesn’t look like anybody is really concerned about renewables in Europe. The German government for example, was quick to try and find LNG alternatives (hardly environmentally friendly) from Qatar (hardly a democratic state), while the French president (similarly to Kissinger in Davos) was suggesting the Ukrainians to give up territory in order to please Russia, probably, since winter is coming anyway, there are barely any LNG terminals, or other sources of energy (in the case of Germany, nuclear energy is also out of question).
So many country forget one very fundamentally thing 'stand by your own two feet' Rely on globalization, rely on supply from other countries is wrong from very beginning.
Keep in mind that the USA has a CONSTITUTIONAL and REPRESENTATIVE REPUBLIC; NOT a "democracy". Words are important... if you want to learn what the American REPUBLIC entails, read our US CONSTITUTION. Don't fall into the trap of fascism shrouded in "democracy".
WEF, what is it? Who entitled a non elected former politician or businessman to talk about our future, the future of our planet? The only elected politicians shall talk to their nations about present and future of each nation. Why Bill Gates, Klaus Schwab, and plenty of others talk their interest not tax payer interest…? Clown world we live.
what are exactly the common values of US with Europe that brings them together? first of all what Europe is she talking about? Is she talking about a country like Norway or a country like Ukraine?
I think it will be very difficult to cut any major producer out. Take electronics, China is the only country able to supply the basic electronic building blocks of resistors, capacitors, precious metals, etc. This programme also misses the biggest market in the world. GM, Ford, BMW, Mercedes all depend on the China market. The manufacturing capacity of the small tigers of SE Asia is too limited in infrastructure, power and trained workers. Only China can meet the demands. This programme needs to cover a more diversified spread of the above points for us to form a better opinion. Its best to keep out the incessant US attacks on China and focus on the macroscopic points of global trade.
I think a globalized community will be more robust when all its parts are robust. Every community should be capable of independence. Also known as, structural integrity.
@@ernstwiltmann3918 ridiculous. We're probably talking about different communities. The communities that I am a member of are shaped by the people in it. It's up to each one of us whether or not we want to have something to do with how things work around us. If you don't get involved, obviously you won't have any influence. If you wanna have influence, get involved.
most products China can design manufacture 100% except ones needing latest most advance microchips and China is building its own big brands in ASEAN India Africa actually many names are more famous esp in African countries
The war in Ukraine 🇺🇦 is meant to open your eyes to the reality in the financial system. Real estate firm and other businesses are also closed too only crypto holders are spending money with ease..
You don’t see opportunities with your eyes, you see them with your mind. If your mind is saturated with fears of losing money and fear of failure, you’ll always miss opportunities.* *life itself is risky, nothing is 100% guaranteed in life.the only thing that is 100% sure in life is that you and I will die one day!**If you don’t take RISK you can’t be RICH!
Like it or not, it will continue, because of the expansion of the Internet, people around the world will be more connected than ever (with a few countries as exceptions), and people will still want the best stuff from other countries, there might be hurdles, but it will continue.
Globalization is giving way to „regionalism „. It’s „the West“, Europe, North- or South America. International trade will confine, but under the auspices of the regional Powers‘ interests. There will be fierce competition between said Powers for those resources that cannot be locally sourced. That will be the new Cold War. It will not be about communism vs capitalism, east vs west; but rather rare earths and energies, a multipolar competition that happens even within alliances. In this world, real friends will be dear indeed.
Excellent Topic/Question. To determine this we must have a definition of Globalism. A more Peaceful World is a good Criteria. Define "Peaceful" comes next so we may have means to measure. Whatever is happening to globalization, it is good to build Resilience focused generally on Life Support Requirements. For now, the focus on Climate Change solutions is more focused on large Scale Behavior modification to reduce Carbon Emissions and Geoengineering while generally ignoring Resilience and Adaptation such as Planned Climate Migration. Building Resilience should become an area of higher awareness related to Climate Change. I used to present at Technology Conferences on Climate Change on the Carbon Alarmist side of the issue to promote reduction of Carbon. Now, I have changed under the idea "Climate Change is real because Climate No Change is Impossible" therefore we should focus much energy on Resilience particularly "Local" Resilience as it has less vulnerability to long supply Chain disruption. Long supply Chains are essential to Global Prosperity. Robust long supply Chains in concert with Local Resilience provide redundancy of Critical Life Support Resources. Hopefully, we can continue to improve balance related to serious issues we face. I'm encouraged by the shift in Conversation coming out of Davos. Good work Elites!
There's a lot of mercantilistic mindsets in this comment section. If this comes to fruition, mentalism and Bitcoin mercantilism will probably be the ongoing modes of wealth storage... First, the countries that have gold? Russia and China. So, good luck trying to get your hands on tangible gold, not an IOU. Second, a money system where hoarding of currency rather than the spending of currency to increase trade is regressive thinking. Less goods and services to go around as a result of a limited money supply. No, this isn't a "eat the rich", this is a "decadence is coming to an end". Guns or butter. And we're most certainly not looking at a butter situation on the global scale, currently.
12:20 "China is the greatest danger to the current world order" (paraphrasing). I'd disagree on this one. China is definitely intent on promoting a completely different set of non-democratic, non-liberal values, but it is completely dependent on the current global world order for trade and it's economy in general. China is likely to be the biggest SUPPORTER of the current globalism regime (as long as it doesn't have to pay the price itself), because it will collapse without it - or at least, collapse FASTER without it. (Refer to Peter Zeihan.)
@@sonnyjohnson8887 It hasn't happened in the past 70 years. What makes you think it will happen tomorrow or next year? Has Zeihan mentioned the cost of deglobalization? The global trade value is at 28.5 trillion in 2021. How do you expect to replace it with deglobalization.
@@sonnyjohnson8887 That is an excellent way of putting it. I keep hoping that he's wrong, or at least that the world will turn out much better than his scenarios predict.
@@2KSnSLifestyle Peter does not talk about replacing de globalization per say , but rather about the forces at play destabilizing it ... such as who will replace the baby boomers there is not enough millennials , Gen X , GenZs,to replace them once the last of that generation die off in the 2040s. He predicts Labor cost will become extremely expensive , less technology and robots make up the difference . something that's not far fetch from chinas ambition to be self sufficient by 2035. they missed the industrial revolution , they missed the computer chip revolution , they are passionate , laser focus in not missing out on the A.I tech front . I believe they can/will achieve it
Globalisation destroys cultures and traditions, in my hometown...our usual way of dress and diet is changing...people are getting fatter...unhealthier, more vulgar and overall dumber. I blame this on the KFC and Mcdonalds that pop up all over the place along with coke products and starbucks.
Well proven now is national security is self security, not reliance on other countries. Once this is achieved , global trade is acceptable. For the US this is attainable, for other countries more difficult, but should be the goal as much as possible. The energy problems Europe now faces a good example, as also is the shortage of car parts, chips specifically in the US. Globalism was very profitable for a few at the expense of the many. There is too much manipulation by the few of the many for their own monetary and political gains again at the detriment of the many. The logistics problems showed the reliance on a few countries far from home shores was clearly shown. Domestic production is a healthier model for all countries as much as possible, in most all sectors for countries own security, and the benefit of their people.
Globalization suffers because the US is pushing decoupling with China and any country that it does not like using bogus reasons. In this discussion, China is a problem but does say why? The West dominated the solar cell industry for decades was not a problem but when China dominates that industry is a problem? China did bring down the price of the solar cell making renewable energy wildly affordable. China has far contributed renewable energy to the world but the US and Europe still consider a threat of what? In the other hands, decoupling hinders progress of technologies so hinders global warming fight. The environmental efforts always take second seat to politics. Global warming is already here. The damage is done. Why the next and next generations have to be held hostage but current leaders that held obsolete ideas, Wake up the world!!!
Distributed, Decentralized, Resilient, and with redundancies. That is what we need. No centralized control of anything. Also, no to WEF with their creepy stakeholder capitalism nonsense. No ESG, no stakeholders, no group of people trying to control everything.
Exactly. Especially, unelected people should not have any say in how countries run their own countries. If they wish to have a say, they need to get elected by the people in each country.
@Nemusis 999 that would be fine but the west has stolen and marginalised Africa and many Asian countries for years. Even transfering jobs to the east as they are to cheap to pay western wage's. I agree with much of what you say but all western countries then in turn have to bring the jobs back to the countries they are based and pay taxes to those countries also
@Nemusis 999 so you agree with me.
@Петро Ґ I understand the misunderstanding. I read it like that myself first time through. So many words have been assocaited with large topics that just the use of the word sometimes gives a false context.
@Nemusis 999, good try but your point was a little buried in two topics in one post I believe, I could be wrong on that.
Globalism is transforming because it needs to continually adapt to the fact that it IS dying.
Does growth need to be the only driving goal? If economies are a little sluggish but nobody is starving or losing their homes, the only tragedy being rich folks can't get richer as fast as they like, why wouldn't that be acceptable?
The World is their stage, upon which to roam and flaunt their stuff. Now what fun would they have if the rest of us no longer worship them?
We'd have to change from capitalism to something else
@@Clifford_Banes you mean we have capitalism now? it looks a lot like socialism for rich people and anyone who is buddies with a Congressperson.
There has to be constant growth because the money supply is constantly growing. Stop partaking in fractional reserve banking and divert from our debt based financial system and its possible. Were screwed by design
@@ricardosmythe2548 I don't care how you rig the game. When the civilization collapses under the weight of this top heavy economy you're going to be dinner.
Davos: “You will own nothing, and be happy”.
I’ll trust in them when there is more mobility from lower to upper, and ownership of assets increase for middle class
This right there! Can anyone tell me when a government did something to favor the middle class? I belive none!
The middle class is being eradicated. They only want the Surfs and Masters. This is a shift of wealth away from middle class to the Masters as simple as that!
Social mobility tends to suffer under conservative governments and all the evidence points towards people becoming increasingly divided and right wing.
Decarbonizers: "You will be nothing, and you won't be"
Globalization, where everything is concentrated and depends on 1 or 2 places or nations, sounds like a dichotomy for the concept of global: through the whole. Maybe it's time to put an end to the stupidity.
"The way China is going" you mean the way its been for the past 40 years
You mean the way they were trade dumping.
@@ph11p3540 No one is forcing anyone to trade with China. It's a free market. Deal with it.
@@2KSnSLifestyle Exactly, that is why countries are moving away from trading too much with China. Get used to it.
@Yee Tian But US labor is not 2 bucks per hour not even close. No more flooding markets, trade dumping, and subsidizing will be accepted.
@@rickjames18 Yeah right. The reality is the majority of countries still trade with China because there's no other alternatives.
The bottom line of globalization is how can we exploit cheap labors.
And also hide ill gotten wealth.
Globalism is Marixm. You know their motto . . . workers of the world unite....
The disdain for the US is thinly veiled by the presenters. Too bad everyone is coming late to the table. We have folks like Peter Zeihan who have been forecasting this breakdown of globalization for years.
Globalization did not arise in the last century because humans learned to be more civilized and cooperative, it arose because the US had the will to largely subordinate its interests to a rules-based order over and the power to enforce that order over and above the strategic interests of lesser powers.
The US appears to no longer be interested in maintaining this order, and without such a power enforce the rules, globalization cannot exist. Freed of the consequences of transgression, states will resume pursuing their local interests and grievances, just as Russia is doing right now.
Can China fill these shoes? No, absolutely not, it has neither the means nor the will to do so. China's economy is collapsing, its population is about to collapse, and its navy cannot project power beyond even its immediate shores. Moreover, the idea of China consenting to sacrifice its own interests in order to guarantee international rule of law is frankly absurd. China is an authoritarian state that fails to follow even its own domestic laws.
Globalization is over and regionalization will take its place.
Interesting take. As much as the criticism against the US military industrial complex is warranted, people take for granted the stability of the part 70+ years. It was for the betterment of all.
Europe never had to spend any money on weapons/military, and instead could focus on rebuilding, and developing their people.
Russia shows what happens to a country/culture that's stuck in the past century. So much spent on the military, yet the majority of their people enjoy a very low standard of living.
@@garthy4u Yes, well-publicised excesses, like Iraq or Afghanistan, are easily perceived and felt, while the reverse is true for the effects of the conflicts that don’t take place because they were avoided.
What we have been living in, which appears to be ending, is called the ‘long peace’ in history and IR. While the resulting ability of countries to focus on development rather than security is called a ‘peace dividend’.
@Nemusis 999 I agree that change through trade has totally failed to foster democracy.
I’m sure the US will continue to support the order in some ways, but I don’t see it make huge efforts to guarantee it anymore. Guaranteeing requires willingness to make major sacrifices and enter enter conflicts if needed, which seems to difficult now. Perhaps I am wrong, but Trump’s Nationalism and Biden’s speedy Afghanistan exit have persuaded me otherwise.
I would not say only US allies have become addicted to trade with the main fascist powers. The US has an enormous trade with China, for example.
I agree we need to stick together.
China collapsing ? Which century you live in ?
@@spencergoh5077 substantiate your point and I will be able to respond to you.
What Europe needs is to do is to separate itself away from American warmongering. The US has been seeking conflict with Russia for decades now and European countries have been so witless as to agree with the US's catastrophic schemes.
Nice try kremlin bot.
Together with the US and the rest of the world, we can isolate Russia to the point of collapse for it's warmongering.
France and Germany may be the first breakaway countries! Wouldn't that be s Door Opener?
@@kirstinstrand6292 How have the two supported US warmongering? I remember only too clearly how both opted out from the Iraq War, much to then chagrin of Dubya and his merry band of neocons.
We, Europe, need to step away from anything non related to democracy. Stop trading with dictators, One by One and the renewable energy will make this possible.
The U.S. isn't a warmongering Nation. Far from it, it was prop up at a World-wide Security Force by the U.N. The U.S. hasn't been itching for a war with Russia/Soviet Union either. We realized it war neither could win. It funny how the bad apples keep on repeating history. Just saying.
Globalization is seen by many people as a polite term replacing Imperialism. Globalization seems to serve the same people that Imperialism has served. Can the people, that own most of the planet, help us all between sips of champagne in Davos? I do not know. Moreover, I will not hold my breath waiting for the self entitled to help.
No, there IS a critical difference between Globalization and Imperialism. Globalization is a WORLD Order, whereas Imperialism is sequestered systems where the economics are almost entirely contained within the territory of that Empire. Very little trade goes outside of it, as Empires didn't trust each other enough to rely on each other for critical goods. Globalization is the opposite of that, where nations are all relying on each other in a global network where nations specialize in this or that industry and those industries sell to everyone else in the world. Empires are similar, except that they typically only sell within the territory of the Empire largely due to protectionist policies. The European Empires prior to WWII worked exactly like that. There was some trade between them, but all critical components were kept in house, so to speak, because they didn't trust each other. In such a system something like Airbus in Europe could never exist. The competing Empires would never trust each other enough cooperate in building complex machines whose components are sourced from the various Empires.
The end of Globalization is just that. Because of numerous reasons, not the least of which is shrinking populations, nations can no longer rely upon each other for critical needs. The last time wheat prices seriously spiked, the so-called Arab Spring happened with numerous governments being overthrown in the Middle East. With the Ukraine war, both the first and second biggest wheat producers in the world are getting knocked offline AT THE SAME TIME, and their biggest customers are in the Middle East. The consequences are likely to be much bigger than the Arab Spring. The shrinking demographics around the world (China in particular) is causing a shortage of labor AND a shortage in Consumption. International Supply Chains are becoming destabilized, and it was always going to happen. Covid just sped things up a bit.
@@Seastallion You are absolutely right. Globalization is not the gunboat economics of imperial times. But it does allow one to produce cheap t-shirts in the collapsing factory in Bangladesh. As a world order globalization should assure global standards so that the workers in Bangladesh do not die, but it does not. Imperialism was the imposition of the powerful over the weak. Globalization is the taking advantage of the desperate by the powerful. Imperialism allowed the Empires, now politely called the West, to enrich themselves by fleecing countries that lacked the means to defend their interests. Now we have globalization and the descendants of the Empires still take advantage of weaker countries, only now it is polite. I benefit as a consumer from globalization as my ancestors benefited from imperialism. I just feel better because I did not send a gunboat.
@@stevekontis8992
There is something to that, but at the same time, those workers in "Bangladesh" wouldn't have had better paying jobs (they'd still be on the Rice farm or whatever), and the country wouldn't be able to benefit from the income to build better infrastructure, etc. Those Bangladesh workers wouldn't have cell phones with internet access and possible schooling to improve their situation. Without the western investment, they'd still have been dirt poor and with no possibility of upward mobility. It's not as though the business relationship is one sided. Yeah, the business elites are making out profitably, but they aren't the only ones. In reality, it's the Middle Class of the developed countries that get screwed in favor of cheaper labor. Only now, much industry is coming back replacing the cheap labor overseas with even cheaper automated machinery. Textiles in particular are returning to the US leaving the overseas labor without those jobs now. So would the workers in "Bangladesh" be better off with the foreign business leaving their country alone now?
@@Seastallion I will not argue with that. I just think that globalization means globalization. Globalize standards. Why should I, who works in an environment with health and safety standards, benefit from the cheap labor of people who do not enjoy the same benefits and protections. What exactly are we globalizing? I believe in globalization and will applaud it as soon as I see it.
@@stevekontis8992
That is the only reason Globalization works. If the workers overseas were enjoying the same standards with the same environmental regulations, THERE WOULD BE NO GLOBALIZATION. There would literally be no point. The only exceptions would be in raw materials that couldn't be gotten elsewhere, and that wouldn't be Globalization either. It would just be international resourcing, but only as necessity required.
I find this topic both very interesting and amusing at the same time. Amusing because the host and his guests are young and might not remember when ‘Globalization’ was introduced by politicians and corporate sharks as the way into the future in order to create a more free and prosperous people. When in fact the people of the 90’s and early 2000’s marched on the streets protesting against it knowing that the only prosperity that this was to bring were to the world’s elite. And it did. The gap between us and them has expanded beyond imagination. Of course the majority of the western worlds population could never have possibly been wiser then our elite. So here we are. And here we are. And all I can say is that we told you so. Which of course is sadly pointless.
Are you saying the the rest of us have just stayed the same, that only the elite has become richer? Would you rather have it that everyone is poorer but with smaller gaps in society? I feel that this is the ever present dilemma and I'm not sure what the solution would be
'We told you so' what? What did you tell us? That we would go through a global pandemic and a climate collapse?, which is where we were this time last year. (No one, practically no one, is going to remember just how close we came.)
I'm sure you wouldn't have that phone or the same opportunities you currently have neither would I without globalization... we won't have cheap and diverse food as well you can see the signs already with food prices and shortages
The rise in the wealth gap has a lot to do with changes in domestic policies (changes in tax structure, policies, regulations, social programs, spending priorities etc. to favor the wealthiest over the middle class) Automation also plays a role. Blaming trade or immigration or cultural change or any of that stuff for the decline of the middle class is mostly a distraction. That said, a rapidly growing economy will generate more millionaires, and that isn’t necessarily a bad thing, as long as its coming from overall growth and not from policies that gouge the middle class.
Yes, I recall all the warnings about outsourcing manufacturing to China, but profit was the driving force. Now the US is no longer capable of making much of anything.
In principal globalisation has the potential of increasing the prosperity of all, however by ignoring political reality it can have a darker consequence. The other issue is the way globalisation has been implemented has increased unrest in the developed world, even if its has improved the developing world.
The final issue is the rules under which globalisation operates is based on the overwhelming military power of the US. With the rise of the developing world the relative strength of the US decreases and the rules under which globalisation can work is weakened. The way we have implemented globalisation is self-destructive. The more successful it is, the quicker it will crumble.
The short term decline of china actually will strengthen globalisation as china will be more reliant on globalisation to overcome its economic issues. However this is temporary and the self-destruction of globalisation will continue.
As for the issue of bottlenecks, these are all short term disruptive effects which can be resolved even if they cause a short term hick up in the system.
As for the future, I have no idea but I suspect the world will start dividing into trade blocks or alliances. What has happened to Russia is a good example. The sanctions against Russia are only supported by the anglo-sphere and some of its closest allies, such as Poland, japan, etc. The bulk of the world, by population, is not part of this. 8 members of the G20 do not support the sanctions for example. We are already seeing the birth of trade blocks based on political alignment and i suspect this will grow.
First go to other countries genocide on them loot them as much as possible take that wealth to your countries and store it there design rules by which all others will play in a way that benefit you the most try to open the markets of other countries so that your pvt companies can earn more and when other countries which were first looted through their hardwork start beating you in your own game start whining about it.
8 members do not support so why d you need 20 members and 20 opinions if you want them all to be same. Also who sanctioned USA for Iraq, Somalia, Libya, Afghanistan.
Trade block means multipolar world thus China objective being attained.
@@siddeshnaik2296 True, which is why the current rules based global system will collapse, if it has not already collapsed. We will be going back to a world of major power blocks, similar to the early 20th Century. Each will contain its own trading block, for the simple reason trade will once again be a tool each block will use in its conflict with the other blocks.
@@marczhu7473 You raise a good point and while I have never considered this idea, its very possible China did want to create its own power and trading block, divorced from the one created by the US in 1945. However I suspect China has not thought it through to that point and are simply chasing short term objectives. A China trading block would not benefit china’s current manufacturing focus, unless China was pivoting to a consumer based economy. Only time will tell.
Centralisation of production makes any economy brittle. Top down control systems fail very quickly compared to bottom up ones
Monopolies seem to be doing well
@@kwekspeps7207 About the only ones who are. When the dinosaurs were wiped out fungi did extremely well.
The tiniest news studio table in the world makes a reappearance, lol. 🤣😹
Love DW!!! ❤❤❤
It's only for the daring. The antagonist of Putin's table, à la "Covid-19 for all if one has it". 😂😬
I believe globalization will be far more diversified 30 years from now. Regional economic blocs will aim to become far more self-sufficient.
I can see that; within the respective blocks, there would still be diversified trading partners.
30 years from now?, you, I, everyone, will not even recognize this place. Change started a little late but it is picking up speed, exponentially.
Except, that's NOT Globalization. Economic "blocs" is precisely what Empires prior to WWII were. Those Empires rarely traded with each other, and competed for limited resources which led to wars. The Global Order created by the US via the Brettonwoods Agreement after WWII was an attempt to change that, so everyone could trade with each other freely, with Security guaranteed by the US. Both national security and shipping security. The US played international police, forcing everyone to play on the same side, even countries that don't like each other. That is going away. Those "blocs" (Empires) will start competing again for energy and other resources necessary to maintain modern life.
Regional blocs make sense. VS: Produce raw materials and ship them 1/2 way around the globe. Factory produces the goods, with the corporate headquarters 1/2 the world away. THEN, ship the finished goods 1/2 way around the world. Ok.
This sounds way too much like 1914 all over again. I really thought the 21st century would be peace at last. The movie Dr. Strangelove is more reality than fiction. DW Thank you for these excellent programs even though it looks to me like the human race is going nowhere fast. I was born in the late 1940’s.
you were born in good times.. now onward aint no fun!
When we hit 1910, people knew that we were in 'Strange Times'. There was a foreboding in the air.Then it kicked off. WW1 moved seemlessly into WW2. What can you do? This is a good channel.
George Orwell and Aldous Huxley joined the conversation
@@jonspambottomly4105 Thank you for your contribution. A great channel indeed. I concur WW1 & WW 2 were the same war. Since the Atomic bomb the Great Leaders do not declare war anymore. Like the USA in Korea & Vietnam & Russia in Ukraine it is correctly called Special Operations. The USA has been involved in several Special Operations and they lie and call it a war. Only congress can declare war according to the constitution. Lets see what China can do now to take back Taiwan. Endless wars ( special operations) until we can finally unleash Hydrogen Bomb Missiles to bring World Peace.
@@jose98937 Thank you for your contribution. Yes I am very fortunate to be born in the USA in these times . This may go down in history as the best time to be alive ever. And soon after I was born the United States did special operations in North Korea then they did special operations in Vietnam. The USA lies and calls them a wars but only Congress can declare war according to the US Constitution. I am in great times right now with all the Internet and information we can get and still we have many special operations all over the world. Of course it’s the same thing as war. When was it ever really any good? To be a cynic or pessimist like I am I call it being a realist. Being an optimist must be a wonderful thing I call it denial. Not just thinking of myself I feel so bad about all the people who have to suffer under the great leaders in our world.
We need to start buying less junk and make what we have last longer. Then we can afford to pay higher prices for locally produced products that give jobs to our citizens.
Well put. 👏
Say that to the average young family struggling to make ends meet. It's all very well to have noble aims and virtues but the majority of people can't afford to or just don't care about the future of the planet.
Totally agree. We make people poorer, quality goods more expensive, there are less jobs ... it can't end well.
@@Auriflamme My point is that if people were willing to pay more for local products and services, then people could live decently even from non-skilled jobs. Personally I am tired of dealing with automated tellers and voice navigation systems. I’d be willing to pay more to have human tellers and phone operators earning a decent wage.
Sure. But there is another reason people buy and throw away things very soon. It’s the technological benefit new products promise. Some are just marketing but others are real. Still, having better quality would make it viable to change the old product to the new version for a fair price. The customer gets the benefits of the new product. The producer can use the old one as a resource or refurbish them to make cheaper offers for people who don’t need the newest versions. Then trash would be minimized too. And the company actually has a healthier customer base.
Excellent documentary. The UK is one of the most globalised countries and being global doesn't work without a cheap source of energy
Instead of dumping all the manufacturing eggs in one basket (China), pick 5 high pop countries and divvy up the load. Nigeria, India, Indonesia, Bangladesh, Philippines, Vietnam, Mexico, plenty of high population areas that could support lots of manufacturing. This way, if any one goes down (name your crisis), the others continue operating.
Right now we see China do covid lockdowns and lots of the world stops. China has too much of the world's industry.
Also, after the war, Europe maybe wants to set up Ukraine to be the low cost manufacturer for Europe for a few decades.
That is the plan I believe.
The reason China was chosen is because the western world in the second half of the cold war wanted to pit China against USSR and hence pumped their economy it is politics that decides economy not the other way round
Or maybe just move as much of the manufacturing as possible back to the EU and then automate the heck out of it. Push automation as far as possible, everywhere it's possible. We're already having a worker shortage in the EU so pushing automation to the extreme wouldn't kill too many jobs.
In the end what we really want is to become more resilient and especially not dependent on authoritarian countries like China and Russia. We've trialed it for some decades now and all we ended up doing was giving up a huge chunk of the Western competitive and technological advantage to countries like China almost for free.
China made full use of the "technology transfer" and gained the technologies for free, which western companies had spend years of R&D and money to perfect.
Manufacturing should be localised wherever possible. Globalisation is extremely wasteful in terms of resources it only makes sense because of the currency systems we use
I believe that, in these events, ultimately financed by large corporations in the world, everything that is discussed boils down to how to achieve or strengthen the power of these large corporations.
IMO each country should be able to sustain itself as much as possible then import/export things they don’t have or produce excess of. Obviously it would be easier for larger countries but it would help minimize an incident having a catastrophic effect on a country not having what it needs. The on-demand type of ordering has now been shown to have too much risk when it comes to important products like micro chips. Hopefully lessons learned.
shortages of microchips was a result of de-investment in manufacturing during the pandemic, and it will take time to recover regardless of source. It has nothing to do with geopolitical issues or trade wars. There is only a handful of microchip manufacturers in the world.
@@faris7000
Covid sped things up, but it was always going to be an issue. The Global demographic implosion was going to see to that, which is itself a direct consequence of Industrialization. Nearly the entire industrialized world is aging beyond their capacity to maintain their industries on the levels needed to maintain Globalization. China is the fastest aging country of all thanks to their One Child Policy and cultural bias towards having sons resulting in mass selective abortions of girls. As a result, 40 Million+ men in China will never get married and have a family. China's population may be half of what it is today by 2050. The situation is worst in China, but they aren't alone. Most of the industrialized world stopped having children in meaningful numbers and nothing can fix it. It takes 20 years to grow a 20 year old, and urban living makes raising children expensive, so people don't particularly want to.
Ultimately, the world is going to have to find a new balance between demography and Industrialization and that is going to take time. Immigration is not a long-term solution and only a handful of countries are even capable of doing that well. China certainly can't do it, or more to the point, won't.
Can the people be convinced that sustenance is better compared to abundance? With current inflation, there are so many pressure for politicians to "do something" to combat inflation. Imagine not buying cheap products from abroad, would the people accept even worse inflation?
Micro chips are not important products. Food and fuel are critical items.
Removing their production in East Asia means losing their influence in the region as well; in short, China would have more influence in Asia eventually which something US trying to prevent to happen.
They shd move it to Africa and see the games changes simple.
@@princedukenkanteen2636 That would be good for Africa, and if that happen, hopefully, they'll be in control not other way around like what happen few decades ago. But the only problem I see in Africa is that governments are pretty unstable; too many coup.
thats the core problem why there cant ever be peace on earth. usa want to isolate china russia which are 2 super powers that have their own view and interests and when you push them into a corner for too long something gonna happen. its sad that usa seek world dominance and try isolate 2 super powers cuz russia china know excactly what usa doing to them, even india feel the pressure
@@encabsss Take businesses back to Europe so that Europeans can work. Businesses with production, not only services. This reasoning that you and many others have, building our factories in poor areas of the world and selling them in Europe and America MUST stop. You and others like you have destroyed us. If Africa after 40-50 years becomes strong enough, then people like you are going to say "let's move our businesses/factories somewhere else". No mate, you are totally wrong with this kind of thinking
It's too late for the US, they are too late to the ball game.
It was a bad idea from the start. Allowing capitalists to not only move manufacturing to cheaper labor areas but allowing the same people to move their profits to no tax areas only serves to make the rich richer. We can can't make everything ourselves but we can make a s much as possible. If you trade in a country you pay tax in that country.
It's a bit sad, because there was a huge opportunity to do it better from the start.
Just once again drives home the importance, nay the very meaning, of the term "sustainable".
Quite simply put if something is not sustainable then it will come to an end. If a long term risk analysis ignores the sustainability involved in such an important thing as global trade then there is something wrong.
Your guest Anahita Thoms works for Baker McKenzie which is classified by the International Consortium of Investigative Journalism as "an architect of the modern tax avoidance system" listed in the Panama Papers for its work in promoting and enabling offshore tax avoidance. This alone should have disqualified Anahita from having a platform on your show. Globalisation for WHOM?
She does not look "hungry"
I don't know why, but I never before imagined seeing these two gentlemen in the same room.
We are not interested in a unipolar US Imperium here in Europe.
Greatest fallacy is the belief markets are free.
Right--not with central banks.
Some veteran European leaders talk about isolating Russia, but they frequently call Putin behind their backs, giving Putin a strong hint as if Europe is afraid of Russia. Military victory is the only and reliable way to end the war once and for all. At present, Germany and France are very slow to synchronize with several countries in Eastern Europe. This may pay a certain price for their future politics
We do not have free trade now. Part of the problem is the largest oil reserves are sanctioned by the US. How do the corporation's leave globalisation when nearly everything produced is made in China. Chinese wages are to high for the slave running Apple etc.
German industry is what made sure to make Germany dependent on cheap Russian gas. When economics get to decide how things are done, without reasonable control of a government to prevent becoming to reliant on one source, of course it will end badly. Especially when that party you are dependent on is an autocracy. And we see similar bad signs in world trading as well, of course it has to be under control.
the biggest autocracy have in usa. what are you talking?
@@sebokimre892 Yes troll, be noticed.
This is not the end but the evolution and transformation of globalization. Globalization 1.0 was equal to westinization and the evolving globalization 2.0 is multipolar in nature. Interesting times ahead.
stop the debate if globalization means westernisation
I have a feeling those guys in Davos are not being completely honest. And yes, I sort of like euphemisms.
The world doesn't belong to man, but given to harvest fruits and share among the poor.
Blessings 🙏 be at peace ➕
North America and Europe need to look south. Moving production to Latin America and Africa would benefit local economies and help to ease immigration stress.
They will, somewhat. Unfortunately for Africa and Latin America, geography will still make all the difference. Some of them will have opportunities, but parts of Africa in particular are going to get bad. Large segments of the world will begin de-industrializing. Especially significant parts of Asia. Quite possibly China, which is already suffering food shortages, which is why they banned the export of fertilizers a few years ago. They may very well force people to leave the cities and move BACK to the farms to avoid starvation. Rice farming is labor intensive, and is really gardening in that great care is given to individual plants. That takes a lot of people to do. Plus, China is the fastest aging population in the world. They won't be able to maintain their current industrial level.
Globalisation can work, there are countries that has more of a specific reasource than others. What needs to be done are guarantees that these countries wont be distabilized/invaded by a hostile country.
The best space is simply Africa and the singleness of Africa and an actions plans to work with Africa and the. Most problems shall go away simple
Point man.
The past has shown us that you idea does not work.
Not possible, the US invades somebody, what are you gonna do? Cry at the UN about it? Declare war on nuclear superpower? Laws are meaningless when you can't enforce them.
no.because we know who wanna lead the world.and also we know the same country who start the wars in the planet.usa.
@@princedukenkanteen2636 taxes are too high in Africa for serious players to even consider
Too lazy, cheap, and don’t learn, man he hit the nail on the head with that one…
Brexit in the UK demonstrates why deglobalization is the wrong track, unless the planet wants to revert to the 1500 century.
Sounds good actually. Simpler life, clean air.
@@cetaepsilon need to study history, don't you. Lice, diseases very short life spans backbreaking work just to feed your self and your family, constant wars, 4 out of five babies died before the age of 5, slavery the norm, women dying during childbirth along with the babies, starvation and famine are regular visitor, most people drank wine because the water was undrinkable, the list goes on and on.
@@cetaepsilon The good old days when women were pregnant at 14 and people died in their 30s
@@gpsfinancial6988 just like today then. You'd be lucky if you didn't get shot, stabbed or succumbed to drugs by your 30.
@@cetaepsilon Even basket cases like the American South have an average lifespan over 75. In the UK lifespan in the "glorious" 50s was 69, but it has increased to 81. Admittedly the self flagellating UK choosing Brexit and Boris will not help matters.
We cannot continue normal trade relationships with Russia and China, especially Russia right now.
Russia needs to be 110% isolated until they stop the war and pay for the rebuilding of Ukraine and Putin is brought before The Hague.
You are dreaming your fantasies.
@@kirstinstrand6292 he's right dear russian shill
@Nemusis 999 Funny u say that. Who is paying Russia in billions on a daily basis in gas and oil payments. Stop financing Putins war.
As far as trade is concerned China is responsible for covid and uyghur genocide but China is largest trading partner of EU as well as US. Hypocrisy at iys peak.
Globalisation Will be finished in a few years. How can you have globalisation without cheap fuel?
Thank you DW
Globalization benefits the western economy most,regionisation is better for developing
Once again the excellent Rob Watts: always delivering an on point interview. 👉 🌐
Global trade results in manufacturing misalignments. As local politicians exploit those misalignments, everyone is damaged. As costs to business increase, businesses should contemplate coming home, with a mind to not making the same mistake. With green energy and country wide policies to ensure local manufacturing, let us hope that the West forgets trying to deal with thugs. And, we all know who the thugs are. Sustaining de-globalization means forgetting making commitments to governments that resemble Chicago mob theory. The future is deglobalization - and the faster the better.
Would you agree, we fix the local politicians exploiting global trade we eliminate the problem you refer to?
In a way, end of globalization may be cool. Diversity is more natural anyways. Some form of competition will be good for material products and for every local economy.
An end of globalization will lead to more aggressively closed boarders, more competiticion over resources, poverty and less social mobility. So much of the prosperity over the last 70 years has been driven by globalization and we don't have the infrastructure to deal with a sudden collapse of it (people will suffer).
I think it is safer to link one's economy with those who are considered allies. This way if conflict does occur, your economy is not as likely to be crippled by a sudden lack of supply related to a vital component or raw element. So, I think globalization will continue to some degree, but with a lot more care. There may also be a group of nations and factions who trade with one another and avoid others. For example, I can see the U.S. decoupling from China quite a lot in the future. I'm not saying that the U.S. will stop buying from China, but almost anything of a strategic nature will not be purchased from them.
I also don't think that Europe will be buying things like gas from Russia in the future. Russia is far too likely to use that in blackmail to help it achieve political and military goals.
Some countries of course will try to play both sides (like India) but it is unlikely they will receive the same trade deals as others because they will be viewed as an external party who isn't quite to be trusted.
Globalization will work if countries follow the rules like fair competition , human right , democratic government , worker rights, transparency, respect for others, common values etc
Good luck with that. It's a nice thought, but naive in regards to human nature. Piracy and Drug Cartels exist because humans aren't angels. Left to our own devices and given no reason to behave, humans can be, and often are, barbaric.
Rob Words??!?!?!?!?!?!
If you be friend with China you will need to talk about business BUT
If you be friend with America you will need to talk about weapons!!!
It is not the end of globalization but it is a real threat to a Dollar as a global reserve currency and the sanctions are to blame for the slow death of a Dollar.
Geoffrey Bayamukama
The US $ is no longer trusted as a global reserve, since it lost oversight due to
Quantitative Easing FIAT money enforcement, build on just military might, and imperial suppression.
DW Business Special: Is globalization dying or transforming?
Me: Well, is it dead or alive?
Europe needs an energy revolution to start with and a second industrial revolution. The Le Pens and Orbans we have spread accross Europe thrive in de-industrialised, low employment regions. These threats to a free, democratic and peacefull Europe are then subsidised by countries like Russia that have an interest in destroying the unity and values of Europe. Values in world trade should matter.
Start your own.
What is left from so called globalisation just playing with words?!
President Trump had warning nato, but nato countries just laughed.. And now things happened in front of your very eyes.. Not 2 rely on Russian gas, and china supply chains..
I watched the whole report and got literally nothing. Are we heading towards decoupling? (De)globalization? Unclear.
The answer is maybe
Not deglobalization but decoupling from dictators. The further our energy dependency is reducing because of improved renewable energy the more likely to happen.
@@wokeaf1337 it doesn’t look like anybody is really concerned about renewables in Europe. The German government for example, was quick to try and find LNG alternatives (hardly environmentally friendly) from Qatar (hardly a democratic state), while the French president (similarly to Kissinger in Davos) was suggesting the Ukrainians to give up territory in order to please Russia, probably, since winter is coming anyway, there are barely any LNG terminals, or other sources of energy (in the case of Germany, nuclear energy is also out of question).
So many country forget one very fundamentally thing 'stand by your own two feet'
Rely on globalization, rely on supply from other countries is wrong from very beginning.
Keep in mind that the USA has a CONSTITUTIONAL and REPRESENTATIVE REPUBLIC; NOT a "democracy". Words are important... if you want to learn what the American REPUBLIC entails, read our US CONSTITUTION. Don't fall into the trap of fascism shrouded in "democracy".
WEF, what is it? Who entitled a non elected former politician or businessman to talk about our future, the future of our planet? The only elected politicians shall talk to their nations about present and future of each nation.
Why Bill Gates, Klaus Schwab, and plenty of others talk their interest not tax payer interest…?
Clown world we live.
Great video!
I have also watched the French 24 version of Davos forum and globalization. A lot less biased. DW just felt more like American Welle(AW).
Davos is not taking US Unipolar Hegemony, seriously. They all better get on the same page.
globalization’s end has started when US started to bully china and other countries with economic sanctions which hilariously boomeranged😂😂😂
Yes, all started by US
No decoupling. Re-arranging. New allies. New enemies. New century.
To DW team can you do a report on the Defi world of transactions especially flash loans Danke!
what are exactly the common values of US with Europe that brings them together?
first of all what Europe is she talking about? Is she talking about a country like Norway or a country like Ukraine?
@Nemusis 999 my country is in EU, Check my name.
I think it will be very difficult to cut any major producer out. Take electronics, China is the only country able to supply the basic electronic building blocks of resistors, capacitors, precious metals, etc. This programme also misses the biggest market in the world. GM, Ford, BMW, Mercedes all depend on the China market. The manufacturing capacity of the small tigers of SE Asia is too limited in infrastructure, power and trained workers. Only China can meet the demands. This programme needs to cover a more diversified spread of the above points for us to form a better opinion. Its best to keep out the incessant US attacks on China and focus on the macroscopic points of global trade.
What about this: 'China goods credit system', so like carbon credits, you get a credit if you make something outside of china....
@DW - The Lithuanian flag is upside down in your thumbnail. Facts
Stoltenberg mentioned "a lot of prosperity to all of us...." I just want to mention that Stoltenberg has a $50,000 monthly salary
I think a globalized community will be more robust when all its parts are robust. Every community should be capable of independence. Also known as, structural integrity.
Old man
> Every community should be capable of independence. <
Which will be shaped by influence of a few.
And will rather end as a dependency.
@@ernstwiltmann3918 ridiculous. We're probably talking about different communities. The communities that I am a member of are shaped by the people in it.
It's up to each one of us whether or not we want to have something to do with how things work around us. If you don't get involved, obviously you won't have any influence. If you wanna have influence, get involved.
@@theobserver9131 I got it, Petrus just let you into Paradise. Rest in Peace.
@@theobserver9131 Chiraz, as long as we have some structural integrity left.
@@ernstwiltmann3918 Cheers! :)
Great skill as an interviewer and excellent guests
Developing nations had to fight to free their countries from european colonial powers to think about democracy
What is colonialism ?
Asked Britain
East Indies leave now!! Oh wait, they're already dead.
You are right US is beating China because they are making profit in this war. But China is still progressing.
Core interest of globalization affects by the US’s best interests.
most products China can design manufacture 100% except ones needing latest most advance microchips and China is building its own big brands in ASEAN India Africa actually many names are more famous esp in African countries
More famous than western brands
Is this the end of comfortable chairs?
Why you speak now about fate of globalisation during Russia-Ukraine clash? Why did you speak about it when USA devastating Iraq and Afghanistan?
Investors will always seek out the cheapest labor globally, that should answer the question.
The war in Ukraine 🇺🇦 is meant to open your eyes to the reality in the financial system. Real estate firm and other businesses are also closed too only crypto holders are spending money with ease..
You don’t see opportunities with your eyes, you see them with your mind. If your mind is saturated with fears of losing money and fear of failure, you’ll always miss opportunities.* *life itself is risky, nothing is 100% guaranteed in life.the only thing that is 100% sure in life is that you and I will die one day!**If you don’t take RISK you can’t be RICH!
I wanted to trade crypto but got confused by the fluctuations in price
a friend that I referred to Mr Logan Willie just received $7,050 profit after 10 days of investing..... I became jealous...lol
Really y'all know him, I even thought I'm the only one he has helped walk through the fears and falls of trading
Like it or not, it will continue, because of the expansion of the Internet, people around the world will be more connected than ever (with a few countries as exceptions), and people will still want the best stuff from other countries, there might be hurdles, but it will continue.
Always love DW news Reporting 🇩🇪💜
Oh thank lord, finally some good news
There’s better good news in Psalm 37. Namely, verses 9 through 11. That’s what will soon take place. 🙂
Congo was always a place of conflict. If democracy comes there, the western nations cannot afford its price for Cobalt.
USA Could not allow Congo to become modern country , stand by others -. Democratic. Don't.
Globalization is giving way to „regionalism „. It’s „the West“, Europe, North- or South America. International trade will confine, but under the auspices of the regional Powers‘ interests. There will be fierce competition between said Powers for those resources that cannot be locally sourced. That will be the new Cold War. It will not be about communism vs capitalism, east vs west; but rather rare earths and energies, a multipolar competition that happens even within alliances. In this world, real friends will be dear indeed.
Why is the lithuanian flag upside down on the thumbnail?
Human greed shapes the world
Great show
Very patient young lady.
Global Declaration of Independence - Fight the Power (UA-cam video) offers a viable and unique global solution to global problems.
Excellent Topic/Question.
To determine this we must have a definition of Globalism.
A more Peaceful World is a good Criteria. Define "Peaceful" comes next so we may have means to measure.
Whatever is happening to globalization, it is good to build Resilience focused generally on Life Support Requirements.
For now, the focus on Climate Change solutions is more focused on large Scale Behavior modification to reduce Carbon Emissions and Geoengineering while generally ignoring Resilience and Adaptation such as Planned Climate Migration. Building Resilience should become an area of higher awareness related to Climate Change. I used to present at Technology Conferences on Climate Change on the Carbon Alarmist side of the issue to promote reduction of Carbon.
Now, I have changed under the idea "Climate Change is real because Climate No Change is Impossible" therefore we should focus much energy on Resilience particularly "Local" Resilience as it has less vulnerability to long supply Chain disruption.
Long supply Chains are essential to Global Prosperity. Robust long supply Chains in concert with Local Resilience provide redundancy of Critical Life Support Resources.
Hopefully, we can continue to improve balance related to serious issues we face. I'm encouraged by the shift in Conversation coming out of Davos. Good work Elites!
Burger King, KFC, Baskin and others are still in Russia. Time for a boycott
There's a lot of mercantilistic mindsets in this comment section. If this comes to fruition, mentalism and Bitcoin mercantilism will probably be the ongoing modes of wealth storage...
First, the countries that have gold? Russia and China. So, good luck trying to get your hands on tangible gold, not an IOU.
Second, a money system where hoarding of currency rather than the spending of currency to increase trade is regressive thinking.
Less goods and services to go around as a result of a limited money supply. No, this isn't a "eat the rich", this is a "decadence is coming to an end".
Guns or butter. And we're most certainly not looking at a butter situation on the global scale, currently.
Rob Words moonlights as Rob Watts, a DW reporter.
12:20 "China is the greatest danger to the current world order" (paraphrasing). I'd disagree on this one. China is definitely intent on promoting a completely different set of non-democratic, non-liberal values, but it is completely dependent on the current global world order for trade and it's economy in general. China is likely to be the biggest SUPPORTER of the current globalism regime (as long as it doesn't have to pay the price itself), because it will collapse without it - or at least, collapse FASTER without it. (Refer to Peter Zeihan.)
Zeihan is grossly wrong on deglobalization.
Peter Z. has some insightful comments on de globalization . I worry some of his predictions may come true
@@sonnyjohnson8887 It hasn't happened in the past 70 years. What makes you think it will happen tomorrow or next year?
Has Zeihan mentioned the cost of deglobalization? The global trade value is at 28.5 trillion in 2021. How do you expect to replace it with deglobalization.
@@sonnyjohnson8887 That is an excellent way of putting it. I keep hoping that he's wrong, or at least that the world will turn out much better than his scenarios predict.
@@2KSnSLifestyle Peter does not talk about replacing de globalization per say , but rather about the forces at play destabilizing it ... such as who will replace the baby boomers there is not enough millennials , Gen X , GenZs,to replace them once the last of that generation die off in the 2040s. He predicts Labor cost will become extremely expensive , less technology and robots make up the difference . something that's not far fetch from chinas ambition to be self sufficient by 2035. they missed the industrial revolution , they missed the computer chip revolution , they are passionate , laser focus in not missing out on the A.I tech front . I believe they can/will achieve it
Globalisation destroys cultures and traditions, in my hometown...our usual way of dress and diet is changing...people are getting fatter...unhealthier, more vulgar and overall dumber. I blame this on the KFC and Mcdonalds that pop up all over the place along with coke products and starbucks.
Now I am very curious where you are from :-)
The Lithuanian flag in the thumbnail is upside down
Well proven now is national security is self security, not reliance on other countries. Once this is achieved , global trade is acceptable. For the US this is attainable, for other countries more difficult, but should be the goal as much as possible. The energy problems Europe now faces a good example, as also is the shortage of car parts, chips specifically in the US.
Globalism was very profitable for a few at the expense of the many. There is too much manipulation by the few of the many for their own monetary and political gains again at the detriment of the many. The logistics problems showed the reliance on a few countries far from home shores was clearly shown. Domestic production is a healthier model for all countries as much as possible, in most all sectors for countries own security, and the benefit of their people.
No, the world won't be united under one state. United Nations is too weak. National identity still matters.
Globalization suffers because the US is pushing decoupling with China and any country that it does not like using bogus reasons. In this discussion, China is a problem but does say why? The West dominated the solar cell industry for decades was not a problem but when China dominates that industry is a problem? China did bring down the price of the solar cell making renewable energy wildly affordable. China has far contributed renewable energy to the world but the US and Europe still consider a threat of what? In the other hands, decoupling hinders progress of technologies so hinders global warming fight. The environmental efforts always take second seat to politics. Global warming is already here. The damage is done. Why the next and next generations have to be held hostage but current leaders that held obsolete ideas, Wake up the world!!!