A Cautious Case for Economic Nationalism

Lots of interesting stuff in this piece by J.W. Mason in Dissent:

Rodrik argues that, of national sovereignty, democratic government, and international economic integration, you can have two of them but not all three.
To be clear, any progressive politics needs to be unequivocally pro-migrant. But one might argue that freedom to migrate is like the freedom to sleep on park benches—something that should absolutely be defended, but also something that, in a better world, there would be much less need for.
If the hard coordination problem [on climate change] is not between countries, but between generations, then the national demos may still be the only way to address it.
The past decade has in many respects been one of deglobalization rather than globalization, with the growth of trade and financial flows decelerating sharply compared with the 1990s and 2000s. The period since 2008 has been the first sustained period since at least the 1970s when international trade failed to grow as a share of world GDP.

And a quote from JM Keynes in the 1930s, before he came to favor the Bretton Woods system:

I sympathize, therefore, with those who would minimize, rather than with those who would maximize, economic entanglement among nations. Ideas, knowledge, science, hospitality, travel—these are the things which should of their nature be international. But let goods be homespun whenever it is reasonably and conveniently possible, and, above all, let finance be primarily national.