WEEKEND JOURNAL: "The Dangers of Turning Inward: Countries are attempting to protect their own companies and workers from the economic crisis. The financial and political damage will be severe," by Jeffrey E. Garten, Wall Street Journal, 28 February-1 March 2009.

INTERNATIONAL: "Globalisation: Turning their backs on the world; The integration of the world economy is in retreat on almost every front," The Economist, 21 February 2009.

NATIONAL WEEKLY EDITION: "A Global Economy in Retreat: With world trade plummeting, ports stand idle as workers return home," by Anthony Faiola, Washington Post, 9-15 March 2009.

Good trio of pieces regarding the rising tide of economic nationalism, so far not yet extreme, says Garten, and quite understandable given the circumstances.

Still, if you want to see some serious anger, wait until this tide creates enough deglobalization to put at severe risk all those hundreds of millions that located a better life in recent years thanks to globalization. The Old Core's instincts here will not only be counterproductive (we do not constitute the bulk of the global economy's future growth, so retreating to our Western club will mean diminished growth opportunities), but quite threatening to the New Core pillars whose futures are put decidedly at risk with such tactics. We are just now getting those warnings from the Chinese regarding our T bills.

As Garten argues:

It is inconceivable that Uncle Sam could mount a serious recovery without a massive expansion of exports--the very activity that was responsible for so much of America's economic growth during the middle of this decade. But that won't be possible if other nations block imports.

And that outcome is preordained if America's "buy American" instinct is indulged.

Then there is the more obvious reality of having our credit cut by the same countries we may seek to punish with our trade protectionism.

Garten's logical to-do list is one I agree with completely:

It would be an achievement if the WTO publicized and named and shamed anti-global measures that governments were taking. Shoring up the IMG and the World Bank to help poorer countries deal with economic stress would be a good idea, too. Developing far-reaching trade adjustment policies consisting of education, training, wage insurance and other forms of community support for those people clobbered by imports will be valuable, because it would reduce protectionist pressure. Making a Herculean effort to conclude the global trade agreement that now languishes in Geneva and designing and implementing a treaty on climate change would also be a great shot in the arm. And if the efforts under way in Europe and in the U.S. to reform banking regulation could be brought under one roof--a new global banking regulator--in place of what could otherwise turn out to be competing and conflicting systems, that would be a breakthrough.

But the most powerful medicine for the disease of economic nationalism would be a short-lived recession.

As always, very sensible stuff from Garten.

The biggest charge against globalization has long been that it does not deliver benefits to the poor. The main evidence against that is that poorer countries have grown much faster than rich ones since globalization went truly global. To the extent we do witness deglobalization, we shall witness worse times for the poorer parts of the world, along with slower rates of growth everywhere else. It will be the equivalent of depressing interstate trade within the United States--there will be no winners, just varying levels of losers.

But instincts are instincts, and with all sorts of fools dominating the discussion right now, we are likely to indulge their fantasies of "bringing it all back home" until the costs are driven home along with the chimera of "independence." In no time, we'll begin to realize how much more costly deglobalization is in terms of instability and sub- and trans-national violence than was globalization's heady expansion.

And these will be good lessons, despite the pain. Until the experiment is run, the instincts will prevail. We've had globalization based on greed, which I happen to believe in, and now we can experience deglobalization based on fear, which a lot of other people prefer to believe in more.

A final bit from Faiola's piece:

Singapore's finance minister, Tharman Shanmugaratnam, however, says that while globalization may be going through a bad patch, it remains the only long-term option for nations as globalized as his.

"This is clearly not going to be a short period of adjustment . . . but globalization is not a bad strategy," he says. "It just takes patience during times like these."

That is exactly why I did not reshape the message of Great Powers as the global financial crisis worsened. I prefer the long-term intelligence to the short-term instincts. I don't want to make a career out of betting on the bad and making that my terms for exploitation.