So... there will be only a limited degree of reorganization, but... in the long run countries and industries that do it in a more sustainable way, making the network more robust, more dispersed, more resilient, will reap the benefit. But let's not underestimate the... seduction of immediate gains. So... despite all this hullabalu the final reorganization will be rather limited. I'm not saying that it shouldn't be done, but my guess is that it will be done in a limited way, because every time there's some disaster... When there was the famous Fukushima earthquake, the problem with the nuclear reactor... there were some sectors that saw... the end of the supply for... intermediate materials because there was one Japanese company that was supplying 70% of the world... Every time that happens, like the earthquake in Taiwan... several years before, everyone says... we have to change the supply chain... make it less concentrated... less complicated, and then... 2 years later we are back to square one. So I'm not too sure about how much change will happen to the global value chains. ...[T]he taste for global free trade will be diminished somewhat, but... on that we should... change the conversation, because... we—especially those who are concerned with the fate of developing countries, like the people that source—we need to talk about intelligent trade in a completely different way. ...[I]t's not just a simple dichotomous problem of free trade versus protectionism. ...[T]here are many different ways of organizing international trade. ...There are many ways of regulating trade. Protectionism is only one way. ...[W]e do it with foreign direct investment ... with government procurement programs... with, in the case of the US, defense policy, so... we need to change the conversation in a more nuanced way...

What It Means

This is a placeholder explanation generated by the low-overhead model. It interprets "So... there will be only a limited degree of reorganization, but... in the long run countries and industries that do it in a more sustainable way, making the network more robust, more dispersed, more resilient, will reap the benefit. But let's not underestimate the... seduction of immediate gains. So... despite all this hullabalu the final reorganization will be rather limited. I'm not saying that it shouldn't be done, but my guess is that it will be done in a limited way, because every time there's some disaster... When there was the famous Fukushima earthquake, the problem with the nuclear reactor... there were some sectors that saw... the end of the supply for... intermediate materials because there was one Japanese company that was supplying 70% of the world... Every time that happens, like the earthquake in Taiwan... several years before, everyone says... we have to change the supply chain... make it less concentrated... less complicated, and then... 2 years later we are back to square one. So I'm not too sure about how much change will happen to the global value chains. ...[T]he taste for global free trade will be diminished somewhat, but... on that we should... change the conversation, because... we—especially those who are concerned with the fate of developing countries, like the people that source—we need to talk about intelligent trade in a completely different way. ...[I]t's not just a simple dichotomous problem of free trade versus protectionism. ...[T]here are many different ways of organizing international trade. ...There are many ways of regulating trade. Protectionism is only one way. ...[W]e do it with foreign direct investment ... with government procurement programs... with, in the case of the US, defense policy, so... we need to change the conversation in a more nuanced way..." in the context of "" to mean that wisdom is timeless.