Get unlimited access to Bloomberg.com for $1.99/month for the first 3 months: www.bloomberg.com/subscriptions?in_source=UKpostsOriginals

It's easy to dismiss other countries' concerns about acting politically on the effects of globalization when your country dictates the economic policy.

Supply chain complexity obviously went to unsustainable extremes, creating fragility in the event of a trade shock. But the drastic de-globalization of the world's economies is an overcompensation. Trade isolationism introduces new fragility into local economies. Even the U.S., who is best positioned for self-reliance, will suffer from the inherent inefficiencies. Globalization isn't dying, it is just hibernating.

Sometimes I find this kind of perspective really short sighted. "We're seeing trade wars with China... war in the middle east and coups in Africa" Those things are terrible, but those things have been happening continuously without pause for the last eighty years - why is now suddenly different?

I don't think most people are against connected economies. People are against the over reach of governments and the inability to get aware from an onerous one

"Multipolarity" is the dirty word that this program was trying to avoid lol

Cacao has never been harvested in Swiss Alps. Likewise, iron ore into Toyotas. Japan does not produce iron ore. Globalization have always existed even before it was called as such. The Portuguese bought spices in India and sold it in Europe.

we need circuit economics. that’s all there is to it. it’s healthcare 101 we need circulation to live. applies to economies too. the truth is…if we apply the biological metaphor to infinite growth the “line going up” is a wound spurting blood into the air…when what we really want is healthy circulation. the problem is our whole world today is laid out as a bunch of “endpoints” rather than circulatory channels. if we think of money as blood cells and it’s just pooling in bank accounts, i mean…that doesn’t sound biologically healthy to me! everything is stuck in a rut and spurting blood. circular economics is a win win for everyone but we have to actually design it that way. and the truth is…economic circuits may not even need money to function at all

We need a global cultural wave that promotes regional economies

Globalisation isn't going anywhere. We're all co-dependant (resources, products, labor, learning, tech, info...) on one another as countries, private companies even more so. It's just that it may not be a mainly US/West-lead effort anymore. And that doesn't necessarily need to be a bad thing. PS: emphasis on 'mainly'. Some people seemed offended(?) or outraged(?) somehow.

As a Bussiness owner I see that some of us are totally dependent on refinancing our debt before the cash reserve runs out but my pals think I am not helping them even though I got cash. And its also easy to manipulate numbers on a small scale which helps to improve our creditworthyness but the only thing concerning is creditors stop funding our operations due to high competition and no actual demand In the real estate sector. Being a landlord doesn't have the glory which it used to had.

Humbly: globalization is going to happen, one way or another, but not the American way; historically, trends like this have tended to arise not all at once but unevenly, in fits and starts. The twentieth century was both a time of global fracture and globalization. I bet the twenty-first will be similar in that respect.

I understand this classical perspective on economies and globalization but the universal truth is rather simple at its core: "Globalization" is not something that anyone controls as we cannot choose whether we live on the same planet or not. We as humans have to work together to create better conditions on this planet for all of us, whether we like it or not. You cannot escape this dynamic. As our history so far shows it's far from certain unfortunately that all of us will become this reasonable at any point in the foreseeable future and in time. But the point remains: We cannot escape from each other, we are all dependent on what each of us does, in every facet of our lives.

Globalizations risk is if it is not for everyone, it's not just unstable it converts trade into protectionism that converts IP, stock markets, resources and commodities into smaller more national concerns. That changes what could have be solved with diplomats and business people into jobs for politicians and military personnel. Globalization is not dead but neither is factionalism and factionalism is so much more volitie and business/trade hates unpredcitablity.

I comprehend this traditional point of view on economies and globalization however the generally accepted fact is somewhat basic at its center: "Globalization" isn't something that anybody controls as we can't pick regardless of whether we live on a similar planet. We as people need to cooperate to make better circumstances on this planet for us all, regardless of whether we like it. You can't get away from this dynamic. As businesses expand globally, they often require consulting services to navigate international markets, regulations. i have built a long-term relationship with a financial analyst and I'm in steady stream of income

Ive been thinking it seems like weve expanded globally as far as we can comfortably without some major changes. I think its gonna go from people caring about the globe to people going back into their own cities and neighborhoods. Less news about foreign affairs and more news about main street where you live

It was interesting to hear about globalization reshaping, as previously i heard only about globalization dying out. I believe that nowadays we can see how geopolitical change affect our everyday lives, so i think i can agree with the main points of the video, but i’m not sure if countries named as “countries-connectors” will be remained just connectors. I think that their economy will drastically became more stable and essential. What do you think?

There will be national level production for super urgent (food, health, daily needs etc.) and super security (microprocessors, energy, arms/equipment etc.) related products; also, regional/friendly nation production for another kind of urgent and relatively less needed security products and rest are globalization i.e., luxury items etc...

Life goes on. Like it has for millions of years. It's literally not the end of the world. Well. Maybe it is for those who profited from "globalization." Grow. Adapt. 🤷‍♂️

Globalization works when the world economies do open up in spaces of Industry where it drives the growth on consumer spending with Net Savings directed towards Asset Purchases leads to Continental-Globalization.

A horrific world war and the very slow collapse of modern civilization.

THE WORLDWIDE PEOPLES WHO SUFFER IN DIRE POVERTY KNEW THIS WAS NEVER GOING TO WOR FOR THEM!

I think everyone agrees that production has to shift to a local markets with a moderate protection and isolation supported by governments. Microprocessors, energy, food have to be local. There will be a need to international exchange to share technology and commodities. We have seen that economic sanctions will not be as effective as one’s thought, and even less now in a multipolar world. The solution will come with strong independent economical blocks willing to trade. Hopefully everyone will understand war slows progress and fair competition promotes development.

Everyone seems to have missed that the expertise once tied to company or nation has been redistributed globally so that all you need is a competent and educated work force to implement such expertise. That makes the need for globalization redundant. This is a success story, not a failure. As long as one country has more of a material than it can use and wants to sell some to a country that doesn't have enough, there will be global supply chains. Globalization is a noun which denotes a process that has already happened.

Brazil would have a lot to gain from this change in globalization, but unfortunately our political class is incapable of seeing the benefits of trade agreements.

War, as globalization ends countries will fight for as many resources as possible for their blocks. We are directly entering the resource wars era. We already were what with oil but this solidifies it.

Power over peace is the goal of those who need power to maintain their peace. Like holding a tiger by the ears from behind knowing you can’t let go and your doom is from your population or the rest of the world … which do you pick?

Globalisation has undeniably brought about significant changes in our world, connecting nations, cultures, and economies. However, there is a growing concern that globalisation is causing fractures within societies. This thought-provoking video sheds light on this issue, prompting us to contemplate what lies ahead. As we witness the rise of protectionist policies and growing nationalism, it becomes crucial to consider the consequences of these shifts. What comes next? Will we see a reimagining of globalisation, one that prioritizes inclusivity and sustainability? I believe that this is a very controversial issue, because even if we calculate the prospects now, unexpected events can occur (for example, like Russia’s invasion of Ukraine) and radically change the situation.

"The historical pattern continues to unfold. Western manufacturers seek to disengage from nations with authoritarian or communist regimes, such as China, only to shift their operations to alternative destinations like Vietnam."

So many people i know work so hard yet can barely afford the most basic cost of living.. It baffles me. Even tho Society is struggling, We are yet to even attempt to implement a concept around: "The better off the lowest income people are doing; The better off the rest of the economy could be doing." -Think of it like a ecosystem in nature. The littlest things might seem insignificant yet, if they crumbled away, the entire ecosystem could crumble. *(Think of this but as a analogy for our economy and our modern day society..) If we instead decided to support the lowest people in the ecosystem, there would be a beneficial dispersion towards other aspects of the society benefiting. All because the lowest people would be doing better (I say better but I really mean: Able to obtain the most basic living standards..) Yet even that would Vastly improve our current state of our economy & society *Also imagine this analogy in our economy. The more help we invest in the lowest level people, the more it would trickle into every facet of our economy. If poor people can pay their rent & not go homeless: landlords would get $, businesses would get $, banks would get $, local small shops would get $, mortgages & bills could be paid, insurance companies would get $, Taxes would get $, So essentially that $ would go out & filter right back in to improve our Country while simultaneously improving our quality of Life. Every bit of the economy would somehow find a way to benefit off of this situation... I don't get why we haven't even Given it a chance?? If it doesn't help? Then by all means stop it and figure out what else we should do. (I hope we TRY something soon, before things get any more unstable. The worst thing we could do is continue on doing exactly what we are currently doing.)

It is really interesting how globalization affects the world. I didn’t know that China occupies all the global market. This country produces everything and imports it to a lot of countries. This was something that really surprised me, although it was pretty logical. It would be interesting, but how globalization works in Japan?

Excellent video. Content and visuals. Thank you.

You choose to condemn russia but choose to do the same thing in Palestine

Multilateralism is usually defined as collaboration between several countries in pursuit of a common goal, where other parties such as civil society or the private sector may also be involved. is usually defined as collaboration between several countries in pursuit of a common goal, where other parties such as civil society or the private sector may also be involved. It's the best

The entire focal point of this video is to promote the China and it's interest by stating that USA cannot get rid of the them completely. However where it failed was to mention India which was not dependent upon Chinese cheating and yet providing a growing market and manufacturing hub for most of the major developed economies. But then ofcourse, Bloomberg has always been a pet of China .

The real problem for people is simply mass production of goods on a global scale that has long surpassed a healthy demand. Goods brought into the world from all angles with the sole purpose of making increasing yearly profits. In time, no real recycling effort will be able to cope with that. We need a sustainable world that uses resources to produce what we really need.

At present, it is hard to achieve universal globalisation for one important reason: conflicts between different countries. The video cites the recent conflict between Russia and Ukraine, but there are many more: the USA and China, Palestine and Iran, and many others. As long as countries cannot reach common agreements on important issues, co-operation will be difficult.

Interesting take on the global economic circumstances. Agree that over 4 decades ago America saw its major industries betray the American working class by moving production of many of their brand names to foreign countries for cheaper labour & greater profits. So many of those lands had no interest in the welfare of their population. Meanwhile in America, dark internal forces turned against the now greatly poor American working class. It is also important to see the desperate actions of Putin against Ukraine as pure economic subjugation which must be denied. Putin has destroyed Russia for generations.

Not mention of the Bretton Woods system coming out of WW2, which stated, geopolitically, the whole idea and enabalization of globalization. And with the US (since the fall of the USSR) no longer interested in policing the seas, has caused the trend away from it. Most of what is happening now is the effect of this cause. Cause and effect are simultaneous.

The wild thing is, we had just settled this during World War I. Interdependent economies and relationships do not reduce the chance of war.

I didn't even know UKposts videos can have multiple languages at choosing. This is great!

Kishore Mahbubani, a scholar and former diplomat from Singapore, claims that although globalization began in the West, it is in the West that the voices warning of its impending destruction are most audible. He contends that in managing globalization, the West, or more specifically the US, has made three strategic mistakes. The first is the failure of the elites in the US to protect the working classes from the inevitable disruptions caused by globalization. The second is the weakening of government institutions, especially in the US. Finally, the creation of a functional plutocracy has effectively undermined the American democratic system. 🇨🇳 🇨🇳🇨🇳

The more you want to be in control the less you actually have. RIP Reset

It is the rising monetary joining and reliance of public, territorial, and nearby economies across the world through a strengthening of cross-line development of products, administrations, innovations and capital. Stocks are falling and security yields are rising, however advertises still don't appear to be persuaded the Central bank will seek after plans to continue to increment loan costs until expansion is taken care of. I'm currently at a junction choosing if to exchange my stock portfolio, what's the most effective way to exploit this bear showcase?

From my point of view, the entire world isn’t ready for complete globalisation unless we stop sticking to things that are hindering the global progress, for instance, current wars and conflicts. Why don’t we analyse the current situation which world is stuck in and think how can we work together for our future. It would rather be more efficient to focus on such things as Space exploration, Environment Protection, Global Warming problem and further.

After seeing these images of Vietnam and Indonesia all I can say is that I'm glad I travelled when I did. I don't begrudge people wanting a different life but I can't help feeling sad that it has come at the cost of beautiful landscapes and cultures.

Globalisation never began in 1900 it was there from the advent of civilisation, it’s visibility and scales decreased and increased over time.

It will be interesting to see how USA will try to do to keep global economy using mostly dollars.

World poverty is viewed as a solution, not a problem. The World Bank and IMF think of poverty as low-priced labor, creating a competitive advantage for countries that produce labor-intensive goods. So poverty/austerity is an economic solution that’s built into their models. ~ Michael Hudson

The thing is that the global world is dividing into several regional superpowers and by that hinders the progress of globalization. The controversial point for me though is the impact of military conflicts happening now are given too much credit for being the main reason of this deglobalization, let's say. Though I'm really interested in the questions if the neutral status is attainable in such geopolitical situation and if the China's continuing economic crisis prevents it from being a superpower anymore.

Regarding maps: When did Greenland vote independently in the UN?

It's not regionalisation, it's a rerouting of Western supply chains away from China and Russia. The US remains committed to globalisation but only under it's own terms and conditions. The thumbnail of the UN votes to condemn Russia shows the picture. The world is politically organised around two power centres - one in North America and one in Asia. That political struggle is now being expressed in economic terms.

What may be happening is the growing regionalization within the overarching globalized context. That isn't without its risks as can be seen with many of the conflicts emerging in the world now. It also points to the geopolitical decline of the post WWII system with two major powers, then to a unitary world superpower, and now the emergence of a multipolar world. It's hard to know how this will all shake out, but one of the challenges for all countries involved will be how to navigate conflicts both internal to those countries and external, and how to expand trading opportunities within the new regional context. Those connector economies may play an outsized role in this endeavor.

Re-Sovereigntization is up next and I am looking forward to it.

Interesting perspective on the situation, thanks for the detailed research! The world is dividing into two camps again and this is bound to lead to a global, even more horrifying crisis, isn’t it? This can’t help but make one wonder about our immediate future.

Wait... Let me get this straight. According to some, globalisation is the leading cause of inequalities but we have to fight it by regionalising and there by reducing reliance on each other. Seems like a lose-lose move from my POV?!? If anything regionalising will destabilise the world due to decreased reliance on each other and less required of other countries. Doesnt that also mean reduced productivity as specialisation is the best way to increase productivity?!? Who knows?!? I am not economics student.

Globalisation forgot one thing: the people. Jobs and investments went offshore, many businesses closed, concentration in other parts of the world 🌎 Now the people are paying the price for it. 😢

Unprovoked,what a great joke 😅 2:01

I know that the USA is still viable but there is a lot of news online about underreported or not reported problems that we will soon be plagued with, such as, food shortages, military supplies and personnel, government funding and the list goes on and on. This is very troubling to me.

The same as what we've had for the past 2000 years, war, famine, and poverty

This started so well, and then it just ended with cliches.

How about declaring China a "Non-market based economy" to remove it Most-Favored-Nation Status since it is a Social based Government directed economy?

What come next ? Improved wages, and greater incentives

So now you understand How *Fragile* this Peece is

One would think, and they would be wrong. Control will not give up control. There will be a backlash to this short term optimism.

commercial rules! like water in a riber will always find a way and eventually create its own power 😎

Oceania has always been at war with Eastasia.

What got globalized? Profits for the most profitable industries. PERSONAL WEALTH for a tiny worldwide multi ethnic super rich class at the expense of almost everyone else. Not human rights or human health or human survival on this planet.

It was mentioned regionalization of the economy from the globalization. But there is also the phenomenon of Glocalization - wouldn't it make regionalization another form of this practice? Idk...

Human reality: There will always be one person in a crowded room that, instead of using the bathroom, will wee in the corner and stink it up for everyone.

About time. I am fed up to send my money to people that hate me.

I need an etf covering those economies

3:30 If most countries are growing at 2-3% per year, that's like rolling back 2.5 years of progress. I'll gladly rollback my lifestyle for 2.5 years and have a successfully fractured global economy.

As AI advances, and machines start doing jobs it will br cheaper to do things in your own country than to do it elsewhere. Jobs will start coming back (as long as we don't need to pay people to do it)

self suffiency and energy independence... duh lol.

Excellent!

Globalization failed by not having an answer to kleptocratic regimes and financial secrecy. Our leaders kept fighting the last war against communism, while a new foe quietly seduced many into thinking that doing business with foreign criminals would have no consequences.

I like around 3:30 when he says "...a 7% drop in global GDP..." I'm thinking 'wow, that sounds pretty high - manageable but pretty high' and then he says "...that doesn't sound like much, but think of it as removing the French and German economies over night" - Aaaaand that comparison makes it seem smaller 🤣

The US can pull back all it wants, but it can't force everyone else to follow suit. It has the advantage of the most blessed geography on Earth, whatever the stories it likes to tell itself about the vaunted greatness of its people. The rest of the world isn't so lucky. The more the US pulls back, the more it'll just end up isolating itself. The main driver of countries wishing to engage with the US is the debt-powered US consumer market. If the US makes ever more of its people buy American, there'll be little reason for other nations to care anymore. There's resources elsewhere already (plus the US has a habit of hoarding its resources anyway), and cheaper production as well. So NA will end up forming its own little bubble, and the rest of the world will move on from it. All the while Americans will end up paying much higher prices for their stuff.

Perfect

2:50 So the Netherlands did not Absent, condemn or not condemn Russia's invasion of Ukraine? Yeah right

Well, we need to de-couple. Globalization has pros and cons. Different political systems, some bad actors, could cause global disasters, man-made or natural, based on covid-19 responses and weak supply chain systems, countries protecting their own supply chains, products, services, first........economic, geopolitical changes for better or worse, we need to be a combination of independence and cooperative trade among the world's countries

Would be interesting to see how the "US-led block supporting Israeli war in Gaza" compared with the other "block" that voted for a ceasefire looks like in terms of FDI. No, the fracturing of globalization is the illusion invented by imperialist powers, whether it is Russia or the US, trying to hold on to their "block of influence". If you look closer, you see increased connectivity across the globe. Everyone is participating in global affairs more equally rather than letting everything be determined by the small club of "Western industrial countries". And this certainly freaks some people out.

Next is regional players seeing economic growth to capitalize. I think u will still see significant cross border trade.

It was supposed to be like this. We have finally reached new world where everyone is developing at own pace and own way without other countries dictating what to do just like older times but in a modern context

Trash comment section. Obviously the first thing some people are seeing on this and from a limited angle, the ignorance is hilarious. This video barely touches on anything really. You need hours on each region to really explain what is happening.

US empire crumbling

globalization made lots of things nice, but made pricing bad for poor countries, Countries are now trying to become independent to one another. One of the reasons why people don't go to war its because its more expensive than just trading, if there is no trade to be done then what will prevent war from ever coming again?

What comes next is the multipolar world, as promptly announced by Sergey Lavrov some years ago. At the time of his announcement many people did not take him seriously. Furthermore, this is about globalization led by the West. Globalization, led by the East, a.k.a. Belt and Road Initiative, was always frowned upon.

China numba 1

The thing this video and the comments neglect (either intentionally or through ignorance) is that globalization and international trade routes (particularly those on the seas) exist only because of the US security apparatus. Without American participation or the US' naval protection of sea lanes, the world returns to the general global milieu that existed before the end of WWII. America calls the shots because it is on America's efforts that the current global geopolitical and economic order even functions. Europeans frequently forget, to their peril, that their supply chain of both materials and energy is either protected by the US or is at the mercy of powers whose geopolitical and philosophical interests are hostile to, or at least in direct conflict with, European interests. At the very least, these hostile powers have hegemonic ambitions that mirror "Great Game" politics that existed prior to the end of WWII, and a return to European colonial empires to supply Europe's material and energy needs is neither possible nor palatable to any power.

This video takes little notice of EU, members of which are major players on the global stage. What a pity.

Globalization 1.0 fractured through the world wars. What followed it? Globalization 2.0. What makes us think that we won't move onto globalization 3.0 after this period of instability? The lesson we keep forgetting to learn is that the wealth generation must be divided out fairly to avoid the instability. As long as we keep making excuses for situations like a relatively few getting very rich while most people get left behind we're going to keep running into the periods where the majority want to tear it all down.

@BloombergOriginals 4:50 You forgot to translate the non-English speakers.

Dhaarmik way of globalisation is coming ❤

Globalization works if all parties have the same standards. Of course nations do not have the same standards, so regional alliances make sense. Why does US buy oil outside its borders? It you had unity between Canada and the US both countries would be independent in oil, natural gas and minerals. That's what is needed going forward. To rely on the Saudis for oil and other countries for various things doesn't make sense in today's world.

Its such a fragile system. Covid, the suez canal blockage and other things really showed this. Its great to trade but being totally reliant is just narrow sighted.

you talking about Russian invasion in Ukraine but never even mentioned about American and western invasion on middle east and the whole world thought the centuries....how partial documentary you make always..

Countries which aligned with Russia may be 1/3 world GDP measured by prices, but these countries have majority of population, and that should be taken into account. So it is not so much about geopolitics per se. It's rather a protest against inequality in the global economy and a movement to distribute economic value proportionally to population sizes.

is seriously about Ukraine Invasion? It is obvious that it was for disrespecting the Warsaw Pact agreement ! we all already know that