Globalization is a bit more than just companies setting up shop where labour is cheapest. It is a rules based order that relies on institutions like the World Bank, IMF, a bunch of treaties and other institutions and a set of norms about how relations between States should be constructed. It also relies on an elite consensus that globalization is good. I think there is a sense however that this consensus is breaking down, hence the turn towards nativism in various polities. The increasing willingness of China and Russia to flex their muscles and (re)build regional power blocks means that while international trade may not decrease it may no longer be "global" in the way it is now.

Globalization then will continue along the lines of cultural and political alliances. EU is one striking example of globalization, of you take a look from a perspective of 100 or even 50 years ago. Advanced chip will still continue to be made in Korea and (hopefully) Taiwan on machines built in Europe for companies that build products in the US and in Japan.

What is going to dwindle or even cease is cooperation with not-exactly-friendly countries, like, well, China and obviously Russia, and maybe not exactly hostile but culturally remote, like Saudi Arabia.

India and Africa will remain important cultural and economical battlegrounds between the West and China. China is investing a huge lot into African countries, and I suppose the more advanced of them, like Nigeria, will become the new "tigers" with explosive economic growth in the coming 15-25 years, like Korea in 1980s.

also globalisation is about the only thing other than morals keeping us from fighting each other.

So I'd recommend checking out Peter Zeihan but he argues globalization isn't a natural economic result but rather globalization came about as the US agreed to allow other countries to participate in the first world market on the condition that they don't ally with the Soviets. Thus arguing globalization was only ever a security not economic policy and now that the security problem it is trying to solve is no longer there globalization is failing.

I came here to say the same and I really like your description of the core idea of his last book. After reading it (and with some caveats and small disagreements such as the cost of dealing with Climate Change) it is clear how the US has been the gluing force of globalization for around 70 years as securing mechanism against the Soviets.

Zeihan is a quack who is blinded by nationalism. Capital will always chase cheap labor since shipping is cheap.

Zeihan is as critical of the United States as anyone. He’s just more critical of China and Russia. While capital may always chase cheap labor, his point is that it may not be able to in a fractured economic and security environment. It’s gonna be a hell of a decade.