Depends whether the globalization component is considered a given.

i.e. if you assume that you're morally bound to buy any given commodity from the lowest bidder, then Europe and the USA are f*cked, quite frankly. On a level playing field, i.e. no tariffs or subsidies, someone else will produce food, clothes, steel, cars, electronics, just about everything in fact, cheaper than we can. So actual production will be minimal in an advanced, high wage, environmentally-correct, high-rental economy. This is the big trend we see.

Technological innovation can arguably make up a lot of the gradient; but only if the economy never matures. i.e. the Chinese won't need to buy Euro cars or US electronics for ever.

The exposure we have in a globalised economy becomes pretty frightening if there's a risk of a blow-up.

If, on the other hand, a given economic basin organises itself for a minimum of self-sufficience in strategic areas, then the potential for a sustainable productive economy becomes much greater. I am well aware that I'm speaking heresy here.

I had severe misgivings at seeing the Euro textile industry sacrificed on the altar of free trade. If they do it to agriculture, I'll be on the streets protesting it.

    Have you ever witnessed the anger of the good shopkeeper, James Goodfellow, when his careless son happened to break a square of glass? If you have been present at such a scene, you will most assuredly bear witness to the fact, that every one of the spectators, were there even thirty of them, by common consent apparently, offered the unfortunate owner this invariable consolation--"It is an ill wind that blows nobody good. Everybody must live, and what would become of the glaziers if panes of glass were never broken?"

    Now, this form of condolence contains an entire theory, which it will be well to show up in this simple case, seeing that it is precisely the same as that which, unhappily, regulates the greater part of our economical institutions.

    Suppose it cost six francs to repair the damage, and you say that the accident brings six francs to the glazier's trade--that it encourages that trade to the amount of six francs--I grant it; I have not a word to say against it; you reason justly. The glazier comes, performs his task, receives his six francs, rubs his hands, and, in his heart, blesses the careless child. All this is that which is seen.

    But if, on the other hand, you come to the conclusion, as is too often the case, that it is a good thing to break windows, that it causes money to circulate, and that the encouragement of industry in general will be the result of it, you will oblige me to call out, "Stop there! your theory is confined to that which is seen; it takes no account of that which is not seen."

    It is not seen that as our shopkeeper has spent six francs upon one thing, he cannot spend them upon another. It is not seen that if he had not had a window to replace, he would, perhaps, have replaced his old shoes, or added another book to his library. In short, he would have employed his six francs in some way, which this accident has prevented.