I am concerned about the future. Are you?
While we are in the US, we also have family in Europe and Latin America.
So, what's the concern? Well, there are two that I think should be obvious.
The first is how AI will alter the landscape. It is easy to see that companies might be able to develop products with somewhere between 1/5 to 1/10 the engineers in the not-too-distant future. Let's define that as the time required for a fresh high school graduate to finish a Masters degree.
How can you possibly advise and guide a young person given the huge variability of potential outcomes 6 to 10 years out?
The second is the massive deindustrialization of the West (again, this isn't US-centric as Europe, Latin America and others are deeply affected) as China solidifies into a dominant position in manufacturing just-about everything.
What do the US, Europe and Latin America become when they don't make anything (in relative terms) and AI makes 8 out of 10 people not necessary to run most businesses?
In a recent thread here on HN about what's going on with courts about tariffs the usual one-sided hatred drove the conversation. And yet, nobody seems to stop to propose any sort of a solution to the very real problem that will affect hundreds of millions of people (billions?) in the next few years. If you don't even attempt to protect your industrial means and AI leads to massive unemployment, then what?
I am hoping for an exploratory conversation as a result of this post. My point is simple: Orange man bad. Fine. Got it. AI is unstoppable, so that is a reality we will have to face over the coming years. If we don't pull out all stops to protect the industrial base in the US, Europe and Latin America, the only thing I see is absolute devastation. We cannot float entire economies on the back of AI. That's not how things work. You need to make things. You need a vibrant and varied multidisciplinary industrial base to thrive and survive.
I don't think protectionism is a good idea for the long term. However, I don't think I am equipped to understand what else one might be able to do, what levers you can pull, to mitigate further economic destruction.
I have been in manufacturing my entire life, with a front seat to what has happened over the last few decades. It isn't pretty at all. And it will get much worse. Not only is trade unbalanced, various forms of manipulation (currency, IP theft, etc.) have laid a path of destruction that is deep and wide across many regions in the world. You can't support an economy purely on people making 3D printed and laser-cut trinkets to sell on Etsy.
So, if you can put your hatred aside for a few minutes. What are your ideas on what the US, Europe and Latin America can do to survive what's in the horizon?
EDIT: Great comments so far.
I should add this before the edit window expires.
My thoughts on this have evolved over time. My current thinking is that the US and Europe should invest heavily in Latin America to industrialize various nations an create global competitive forces. I want to be able to choose to buy wire, screws, PCB's, power supplies, displays, motors, etc. from multiple sources, not just one. While it might be impossible to create these supply chains in the US and Europe, it is likely that they can be created in Latin America.
BTW, this isn't about hate on China. What they have accomplished over the last fifty years is nothing less than outstanding. I just think that this has been done at the expense of all other regions in the world and this simply isn't good for humanity.
Taken to one possible long-term negative outcome, you'll have billions of people across all regions of the world lose the knowledge and capabilities accumulated over decades participating in various industries. Once you lose these skill sets, at a minimum, it can take decades to re-acquire them or they never come back. A simply example of this is a specialized type of anti-reflection coated glass I used to buy from the sole remaining company in New York years ago. That company went out of business under pressure from predatory pricing by a Chinese company. I then switched to buying the same product from a company in German, the only remaining company in the west offering this product. A year later, they exited the market for the same reasons. This was over a decade ago. Today, this product is impossible to make in the west, the manufacturing equipment is no longer around and it is likely that the people with the knowledge and experience have retired or moved on. You can find examples of this across most industries and everywhere from Europe to the US and Latin America.
I think a fair, level global market --with respect for intellectual property-- and no undue manipulation is critical for global well-being. This isn't about making every single product in the US or Europe, that's impossible. Balance means that there's competition and you can choose who you do business with, as opposed to having absolutely no option but to buy from a single source. We are working on a consumer robotics project right now. I cannot buy anything for this product outside of China. Well, a few things here and there, maybe, but the bulk of it has to come from China. And, in fact, the manufacturing has to be done in China because that's where the supply chain exists (something most people don't understand). That's the problem.
They still woke up the next morning to figure it out. One foot in front of the other. These were just regular people, their children and grandchildren are alive and well in the world.
Do your best by others in your own life and wake up every morning. "Cataclysm" is dramatic in history but is still a thing that countless people lived through. They worked, played, ate, laughed, etc. Look at what's in front of you: that's life, you have to live it.
I think the difference is that Europe still had an industrial base that could be used to rebuild entire countries and economic bases. Not to mention the Marshall Plan, which had a significant and non-trivial hand at rebuilding Europe.
Today things are very different. Take any object in your home and go through the exercise of understanding what it will take to manufacture that locally or semi-locally (parts and services sourced from regional partners). In most cases you will discover it is impossible. And, if you can make that product, it might be at an extremely high cost.
In other words, the software engineer or graphic artist who might lose their job to AI in the future, will not have an industrial base to consider shifting into as an opportunity to pivot and move on. That barely exists today, and it will get worse over time if we don't address the problem in a sensible manner.
I don't necessarily like tariffs as a tool for rebalancing trade. At the same time, there's something I dislike even more: Developing technology, only to watch it being stolen and used to kill the very business that developed it in the first place...without any legal recourse whatsoever. These problems are very real. Most people who are not exposed to the realities of the industrial sectors don't have visibility into what has been going on for decades. Frankly, I am not sure if we can fix it. It might be too late.
The US only has so many people and resources. Do you want to spend those resources making stuff destined for Dollar General? No.
When you actually engage in designing and manufacturing products the reality of the situation becomes very evident. Except for a certain class of products, you have to manufacture them where the supply chain exists. You cannot manufacture microwave ovens, blenders, refrigerators and stoves in the US and Europe because nearly the entire supply chain for these products exists in China. Attempting to do so would result in a massive COGS differential, even before you consider labor and regulatory costs.
So, it isn't about shifting the entire industrial base back to Europe or the US. That's between ridiculous and impossible. It's about protecting and shifting enough to not destroy whatever is left.
Here's one example: Displays. There are no manufacturers of LCD or OLED display panels in the US and Europe. Yet, almost every product we touch, including myriad critical infrastructure and military products need displays. We have a 100% dependency on China and Korea for this product class. These are massive, highly automated factories. Yet, without some degree of protectionist policies it will never make sense to build a single plant in the west. I was just at one of the main display technology conferences up in San Jose. I would say that nearly 100% of the companies and paper presentations were from companies in China and Korea. Which also means that the technology, manufacturing, knowledge and research in this field has shifted away from the west and is at risk of never returning.
Take that scenario and multiply it by one hundred or a thousand different industries and domains to get the picture.
Again, we are not talking about making plastic forks and knives here.
We have living arrangements both in the US and Western Europe. I hope to be able to get my kids EU citizenship eventually with various visas and residency. If the US improves, they can come back. If it doesn't, they can remain in Europe as they approach adulthood. Nationalism is silly, you'll get dragged by the median electorate. We/they are not Americans, or Europeans; we are just humans looking for community with other good humans with some sense of community and collectivism.
After failing hard earlier in life, I became risk adverse, but also have had some success. I hope to have enough investments by the time I stop working that my kids can survive without working if needed. I also hope I have provided them enough resources and life skills to live a good life after I'm gone until they're gone. This is my apology to them for their existence in this macro, I hope they accept it, and failing that, at least understand it.
You can't change the winds, you can only adjust your sails. Optimize for optionality. Better to have a plan you don't need than to need a plan you don't have. No one is coming to save us.
> So, if you can put your hatred aside for a few minutes. What are your ideas on what the US, Europe and Latin America can do to survive what's in the horizon?
Build for capability and security, not profit. Build so you can build when you need to build, build and protect the machine that builds the machines. Not hopeful, but that is the advice. Everything else is people, politics, policy, and capital to make that happen. "A society grows great when old men plant trees whose shade they will never sit in."
If it were just a shrinking energy/resource base, we could muddle through and build a better political system. Same with climate change. And biodiversity loss. And chemical pollution. And global nuclear warfare. And the decay of social morality. All of these things are solvable in themselves, but in aggregate I think we're running into harsh economic realities that we might not be able to solve all of it at the same time.
Energy abundance is coming, but the transition and disruption will be messy.
https://rmi.org/insight/x-change-the-race-to-the-top/
Demographics dynamics is where the pain will come from.
https://www.mckinsey.com/mgi/our-research/dependency-and-dep...
https://link.springer.com/book/10.1007/978-3-030-42657-6
https://www.cato.org/cato-journal/spring/summer-2018/demogra...
It's the difference between living on a fixed income vs drawing down a savings account. And as we draw down our savings account (burn oil) to invest in our fixed income future (solar) we should not fool ourselves into thinking this means an infinite savings account. Whether we draw our savings to zero or plan wisely for fixed-income, either way we are looking at decreased energy availability, aka degrowth.
Certainly, we're going to bump into limits if we're exhausting total solar potential falling on the Earth and geothermal reserves, but that is a problem decades into the future at current electrical generation technology deployment rates.
How much growth is required to achieve good lives for all? Insights from needs-based analysis - https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S245229292... | https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wdp.2024.100612
Your plan is curiously devoid of answers to the basic questions.
"Chart goes up now, chart must go up forever" is an ideology, not a characteristic of any physical ecosystem. Certainly not an actionable plan that any serious person would follow.
Instead of an ideology, how about a real viable plan pinned to physical reality (CO2 emissions, terrawatts, acres, tons of ore, things we can measure empirically)? I keep being promised this solar future, yet fossil fuel emissions keep rising. Your ideology sounds appealing, but you've got a long way to go to make it reality.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44057045 (comment with citations on automated, electrical heavy haul vehicles in China)
Reminder to think in systems. Low carbon generation keeps pushing fossil generation out. Electric vehicles keep pushing combustion vehicles out. We’re still 10-15 years away still, but trajectories are clear.
EDIT: but I've got to say, I didn't know about those electric mining trucks. Those are pretty cool.
I'm not trying to say "source!" and make you prove anything.
I'm genuinely interested. All the stats I'm aware of show fossil fuel usage going down but I'm sure there is more context to the data I'm missing.
The research you're thinking about shows that fossil fuel usage is declining as a percentage of overall energy use. That much is true. Solar is making progress relative to coal, oil, and gas.
But don't confuse the derivative of the relative difference with the scalar value of interest. Measured in physical units, fossil fuel consumption keeps increasing, as the IEA reports constantly.
https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/global-primary-energy
I like this.
I agree. I feel that I've done my children a disservice by bringing them into the world as it is. I just didn't know this is how things would go.
Billy Joel's 1989 song 'We didn't start the fire' addresses the idea that the past wasn't always better than the present.
The world my children are inheriting is a substantially worse one that the world I inherited.
No comments yet
A lot of people aren't willing to admit this publicly, or even privately to themselves.
There’s a fundamental tension between human rights and affordability or efficiency. Take California’s high-speed rail project, for example—it repeatedly runs over budget. That’s partly because we hold ourselves to higher labor and environmental standards.
In the long run, I believe robotic automation is the only viable path forward. Reindustrialization without it isn't a realistic solution.
My family history is a lengthy record of sacrifice so that future generations wouldn't need to do that kind of work. Part of that sacrifice was emigrating to countries with better opportunities, including America.
Who will still be here to implement any reindustrialization scheme involving low-end labor? What's in that for a kid with a work ethic and a head on their shoulders when the burden for moving elsewhere is online paperwork and a plane ticket instead of tall ships and wagon trains?
And even talking about it gets downvoted.
But as decades of economic research and lived reality has shown us, that contract has been broken for a while: productivity has surged and so has the wealth it creates, but wages -- i.e. the wealth distributed to the labor -- have grown very slowly. (There are a dozen other metrics you could use to show this trend.) This has led to extreme wealth inequality and all the problems we see today.
As such, fair redistribution of wealth was the norm once, people are only saying that that earlier balance should be brought back.
That has nothing to do with the other examples you gave. I mean, outside of some truly disturbing scenarios, restricting Tiger Woods' ability to have sex has nothing to do with how much sex I get.
I don't believe that we need to reindustrialize down to what I call baseline products. In other words, this idea of harsh condition and low wages isn't a reality here at all. Anyone who would propose this simply does not understand reality.
In other words, this isn't about making everything. It's about not getting to the point where you make nothing and you lose all knowledge and ability to produce goods. I hoped the pandemic would result in powerful lessons learned and a set of decisions and policies that would lead to rebalancing global trade. We found ourselves in a situation where we could not make the simplest products at scale, masks. Not only that, we did not even manufacture the cloth or the machines to make the cloth and masks.
From an engineering point of view, this is a system with a single point of failure: China. Anything happens in China --intentional or natural-- and billions of people around the globe pay the consequences. Looking at this from far away, one could easily conclude that this planet is not well-managed (as a concept, there is no such thing as global management, of course).
By that I mean that accepting a situation where everyone becomes dependent on a single provider is incredibly dangerous on many fronts. I am not even talking about the "national security" FUD trope. I am talking about everyday things everyone needs to live, to have access to medical care, to exist and navigate life and career.
A single-source structure is fragile and dangerous. We are often very critical of western government --right, left and center--, and rightly so. And yet, we somehow think it is OK to absolutely rely on the Chinese government for our very existence across all technical and industrial categories? How about we apply the same level of critique and skepticism to them being our overlords as we would to any one political party in the west? And, if that's the criteria, it follows that this global centralization of industrial capacity is likely bad for humanity.
The only thing that would change my mind is that if China radically shifts its culture, government and approach to commerce, which will not happen. For example, I cannot own land or a business in China. I cannot sue a company in China for stealing my intellectual property. I have no access to their courts to address grievances. Their public companies do not play by international rules, cook the books and have not transparency or accountability other than to the CCP. Etc. That's just fine if that's the way they want to live and operate.
I am simply saying that the rest of the world should understand that allowing centralization of nearly 100% of the industrial base in this manner will not lead to good outcomes at all. As AI reduces that number of people who will need to be employed to deliver services, the lack of a significant and diverse industrial base across Europe and the American continent will have catastrophic societal impact.
Firstly, it's important to recognize that challenges with IP protection in China are not exclusively an issue for foreign entities; they represent a broader systemic problem that impacts domestic companies as well.
Secondly, a crucial, though perhaps less visible, factor is the state of the legal infrastructure. There's an argument to be made that China's legal system hasn't yet reached a stage of efficiency or possess sufficient specialized resources to comprehensively manage the sheer volume and complexity of IP disputes for all parties. From this viewpoint, the situation might be framed less as 'China deliberately permits IP infringement' and more as 'China is still in the process of developing a robust and universally effective system to tackle IP protection challenges.'
Finally, China's historically export-oriented economic model naturally increases the touchpoints and potential for IP conflicts between domestic and international businesses, making such disputes more visible on the global stage. Compounding this, many first-generation Chinese entrepreneurs, often products of a different era with less emphasis on formal IP education, may not have initially possessed a strong awareness or understanding of intellectual property rights as they are conceived internationally. This isn't to excuse infringement, but to highlight a factor that likely contributed to the prevalence of such issues.
The secret of all is to invest in your talents (skills) which it seems you and yours have a good start.
Unless your region has an alienated working/lower class who will burn the intelligencia for bringing the world their dark craft, there is hope.
Anywhere there are markets there will be opportunities for the skillful.
If I were addressing your masses (in the hundreds of thousands) I would speak in my epic oratory voice (who has seen *it all) to invest in your own asses. Infrastructure and cooperatives you own. Trusts and communities among you who do not want to rent their lives. Do not follow blindly the intoxicating free for all of imminent western trends. These collapse when challenged as all else.
Owning your own everything is the best of any future.
In the meantime, I am planning for the worst. I've cut my spending and I am using the money to invest in things that I think will provide income in a world where jobs are hard to come by.
Best to assume it is unstoppable, and from an business and employment perspective will evolve unchecked.
> A lot of the benefits of AI are not actually necessary to stay competitive as a country.
I do not see any basis for this claim.
1. On the whole the world gets better over time not worse, despite what people like to believe. At some point this may cease to be true but I am unwilling and possibly unable to influence it in any meaningful way.
2. I'll be dead in 25-35 years. Perhaps 40-50 years if I am extraordinarily lucky or unlucky.
In the short-term, I do what I can to protect myself based on what I think is reasonable to do. In my case that's to live simply and save money. I might be wrong but I don't worry about it.
which in the 21st century, will be hordes of people setting fire to the very obvious datacentres
in most countries branches are closing at an ever increasing rate explicitly because of technology
https://www.which.co.uk/news/article/6000-bank-branches-clos...
every new bank in the UK founded in the last 10 years has no branches at all
Throughout history, we have faced significant shifts, from the Industrial Revolution and the rise of communism to advances in technology and the internet, all of which have sparked similar concerns. Trade imbalances are a regular occurrence and will always happen. The key reason for these changes is a shift in the global currency,' particularly the petrodollar. Our current world operates within a corrupt fiat economy based on dishonest currency, which keeps governments and nations perpetually in debt, allowing the system to continue functioning. The current old way of currency manipulation is collapsing before our very eyes, and many people miss that it's not just about trade; it's fundamentally about a transition from dishonest "money" — currency that can be easily manipulated and printed — to a form of currency that organizations like the Federal Reserve or any other dubious institutions cannot control. Mike Maloney has a series on money that everyone should watch. We are witnessing the collapse of the current currency system -- to perhaps money backed by something real or maybe no money at all.
What brightness do you see? I am thirsty for anything that would make me more optimistic.
The reality is that long-term profitability comes from specialization and value-added production, not from trying to manufacture everything, especially low-margin goods. Even China recognizes this.
TL;DR: You don’t get rich making cheap junk. That’s why both China and the U.S. are evolving their manufacturing strategies.
Moving on to AI: right now, it's a powerful productivity tool, and that’s a good thing. Productivity growth has been sluggish since the PC boom of the 1980s, and AI could help reverse that trend.
With aging populations and rising retirement rates, many economies are facing labor shortages. AI can help fill those gaps by automating routine tasks and boosting efficiency.
HR departments have long struggled with the looming loss of 20-40% of their workforce over the next decade due to retirement. AI can help organizations adapt and stay competitive as their most experienced staff exits the workforce.
It could also ease wage pressure caused by labor shortages due to retirement, helping to keep inflation in check.
AI is how we’ll navigate the Boomer and late Gen X retirement wave.
As you can see, I don’t share the current wave of pessimism. The best approach remains the same: keep six months of cash on hand, and invest in high-quality equities from around the world. That’s always been sound advice-and it still is.
The fallacy in these numbers is that manufacturing output does not measure the origins of the supply chain. In other words, if Ford makes lots of cars and, say, 75% of what goes into making those cars comes from abroad, we measure the end-product value in calculating manufacturing output and ignore the fact that virtually none of the parts of the car are made in the US. For example, the Ford Mustang Mach-E only has 13% of US/Canada parts. The Buick Encore, 2%, etc.
Source:
https://www.carscoops.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/MY2025-...
Manufacturing output does not measure anything that is actually relevant to the root issues in this discussion. It's a number politicians can use to make people believe they are doing a great job. In reality, its, well, fake news. It's like saying that someone looks fantastic while, in reality, they have stage 4 cancer eating away at them.
> The reality is that long-term profitability comes from specialization and value-added production, not from trying to manufacture everything, especially low-margin goods. Even China recognizes this.
Anyone in industry understands full-well that trying to manufacture everything is in a range between foolish and impossible. The message --well, my message anyway-- is that a future where we manufacture nearly zero is the problem. We will not get to zero, of course. However, as I like to say, you are not going to float a sizable economy purely on AI, web development and Etsy trinkets made in your garage. A robust industrial base is critically important. We don't have to make everything, but we should be able to make a lot more products than were we are today. And, as I discuss in another comment, having a single point of failure (pandemic: we could not make masks, medical supplies and equipment) is terribly dangerous.
Manufacturing GDP is based on value added, the difference between the value of output and the cost of intermediate inputs (including imported parts). So, if Ford imports parts but adds value through design, engineering, assembly, testing, and quality control in the U.S., that value is counted in U.S. manufacturing GDP. Imported parts are subtracted to avoid double-counting.
U.S. manufacturing GDP is at or near all-time highs. We are nowhere close to “manufacturing nearly zero.”
That said, you raise an important point about over-dependence, which is a real issue. The pandemic exposed how fragile our supply chains are, like the inability to produce basic medical supplies. The U.S. had not treated the manufacture of masks or even components for weapons systems as strategic capabilities worth preserving.
But that’s a far cry from the claim that "we don’t make anything anymore." We do-and we make a lot. The challenge is ensuring we can make enough of the right things when it matters and keep the markets as free as possible.
In relative terms, we don't make anything. The problem is that this is largely invisible to people who are not in the business of making things. Manufacturing is crucially important to an economy. Note that I did not say "assembly". Most of what we do (US and Europe) is assembly from parts made mostly in China. That's why manufacturing output is not a measure of the gradient we've been descending.
Let me make a parallel with the Amazon third party seller story.
When Amazon opened the doors to third party sellers there was a rush of entrepreneurs looking to sell all kinds of products on the platform. Because you can't make almost anything in the US any more, this mostly consisted of people finding products in China to white label or, in very few cases, do create their own products to manufacture in China. You'd order pallets full of product, ship them directly to Amazon warehouses and you were off to the races.
Lots of people made lost of money. Millions.
At some point, their suppliers, the very same companies they sourced products from in China, realized they could list the same products on Amazon on their own. And that's precisely what they did.
The lack of barriers to entry made it brilliantly simple. Their cost basis was much lower. American and European third party sellers were decimated. I don't have statistics on how many survived. Through participation in my local business community, I happen to know many people who were selling through Amazon. They got destroyed. In many cases their suppliers came into the market with products the American companies developed (and paid for the R&D) themselves, ignoring all IP.
At a larger scale, that's the problem we are facing. We don't make anything. If a company like BYD were to be allowed to enter this market, US auto manufacturers would be destroyed within two to five years at most. Gone.
So, it isn't about making everything. It's about making enough to be resilient and actually have an industrial base. It's about being manufacturers, not assemblers deeply-dependent on China and others.
Bravo for the Chinese.
I have no problem whatsoever with China making decisions and choosing strategies that benefit China. That's what a nation is supposed to do. Bravo on them for taking advantage of all the stupid nations who did not push back and champion their own citizens and economies. They have been smart, the west has been stupid.
However, I think we are at a moment in history where western societies have to recognize that their politicians have made one dumb decision after another over many decades and, as a result, caused severe damage to their economies. To the extent that it is possible to try to rebalance and revert some of it, they should do it. If they do not, the outcome will be economic failure and misery the likes of which most have never experienced. Europe and Latin America have lived through various forms of this. The US and Canada have not, at all. Nobody here understands what could happen because it never has.
Those of us who have lived outside the US and have lived some of these scenarios have a sense of urgency regarding this. Because we know what's coming if we don't put a stop to the destruction. While hearing Trump speak generally inspires projectile vomiting, what he and his cabinet are doing with regards to attempting to rebalance international trade is absolutely on point. If the haters would stop to think and understand and, as a result, support the measures for the sake of their survival and that of their children, we might have a shot. Otherwise, well, I have lived this story and it does not end well. My family owned factories in Latin America (Argentina, Chile and Brazil). All was well and good, they employed hundreds of people. Until Chinese imports were allowed. Their business (and those of others in various industries) imploded nearly instantly. There was no hope of any kind to survive the predatory pricing. Good on China for taking advantage of an opportunity. I don't blame them at all. The stupid decision was to lower the barriers to entry. As a result, entire industries were decimated over time. For example, the textile industry, which is one of the industries my parents owned. I can't even tell you how many hundreds of thousands of people lost their jobs.
Other than the legal and intellectual property issues, I have nothing but admiration for what China has been able to achieve on top of the stupidity of other nations over fifty years. It's not on them, it's on everyone else who enabled it. Bravo China! Well done!
About kids and AI:
I believe that AI is going to kill a large percentage of entry level office jobs in the next 5-10 years. Some physical jobs too, maybe, for example robots for simple manual jobs in restricted areas. Right now all great powers are racing towards the next stage of AI without even thinking about the consequence, because they are scared that someone else might get the ultimate weapon first. What if X manages to push out some AI powered Drone fighter plane swarm before the other countries? What if Y manages to automate certain physical jobs and massively cut down costs and improves efficiency (like the ports)? The consequences are of secondary, if any concern.
It's similar to trains replacing wagons, but on a much, much broader front, and happens much much faster. I have said this before and I say it again: Anyone who is NOT 1) A John Carmack level programmer, or 2) Financially free (and financially free for their kids if any), should NEVER actively participate in any activity to integrate AI into their work. It's fine to USE AI, but it is bad to INTEGRATE AI. AI doesn't do much if you don't integrate it properly.
About industrialization, or de-industrialization:
Well I don't see any politician can reverse that, at least in North America. The 40 years or so of globalization has raised not one, but two generations of politicians, bankers and workers who are well adapted into the reality. What? You got laid off because the factory got moved to China/Mexico/Indonesia/etc.? Tough luck buddy, no one cares about you. If you want to reverse the trend, I'm very sorry, but you have to have a clean slate to even start with. That means a lot of bad things. A lot of political in fights. A lot of economical ups and downs (mostly downs). A lot of assassinations perhaps.
And you know what -- it's still going to fail, and eventually everyone calls for wars. Why did we have the second World War? Hitler didn't single-handedly push the German people into a bloody war. They got pushed by the Great depression and the badly managed Weimar republic! Now I feel that we are not too far away from the next war, which might be the final one. And by then everyone, everyone from the West and the East, are going to call for wars, because it's a lot easier to go into wars than going into a true reform/revolution.
The next one will start conventional, Europe vs China (economical reasons), in ~55 years and it will escalate into a 3 day nuclear exchange.
That will be the end.
And then things will go as south as it gets