There is little question that there has been a sea change in attitudes toward globalization, particularly on the issue of foreign trade. Most of the developed states had long maintained a positive stance toward foreign trade, but in recent years a growing part of their populations have turned against free trade. The middle class of most rich countries are now questioning whether free trade is in their interests. Whether this means that these states will turn to protectionist measures remains to be seen. The change was also experienced by John Maynard Keynes in 1933:
“I was brought up, like most Englishmen, to respect free trade not only as an economic doctrine which a rational and instructed person could not doubt, but almost as a part of the moral law. I regarded ordinary departures from it as being at the same time an imbecility and an outrage. I thought England’s unshakable free trade convictions, maintained for nearly a hundred years, to be both the explanation before man and the justification before Heaven of her economic supremacy. As lately as 1923 I was writing that free trade was based on fundamental ‘truths’ which, stated with their due qualifications, no one can dispute who is capable of understanding the meaning of the words.”
“For these strong reasons, therefore, I am inclined to the belief that, after the transition is accomplished, a greater measure of national self-sufficiency and economic isolation among countries than existed in 1914 may tend to serve the cause of peace, rather than otherwise. At any rate, the age of economic internationalism was not particularly successful in avoiding war; and if its friends retort, that the imperfection of its success never gave it a fair chance, it is reasonable to point out that a greater success is scarcely probable in the coming years.”
Lord Maynard Keynes
The US currently gives Israel about $3 billion a year, the most that any country in the world receives from the US. The US and Israel are apparently close to an agreement that would increase the amount to about $5 billion a year over a ten-year period. The amount is huge and the deal is somewhat paradoxical given that the Obama and Netanyahu Administrations have often been at odds. It is also inconsistent with the position of the US State Department condemning the continuing build-up of Israeli settlements in the Occupied West Bank. It is often very difficult to figure out what “real” policies actually are.
World Politics News 
Hi professor, one of the hallmark institutions set up by Keynes was the restriction on capital mobility. I believe that restrictions on capital mobility will slow down globalization and make it easier for nations to monitor and hold businesses accountable to labor, health, and pay standards. It also prevented a “race to the bottom” of corporate taxes and regulation. What do you think about bringing back Bretton woods institutions to their original purposes?
LikeLike
Capital controls could give states more tools to manage the process of globalization, but the current system is structured to permit almost total freedom to move capital. In fact, the tax codes create incentives to move capital and offshore banking create tools to disguise that movement. The national governments of those states that benefit from these loopholes would veto any attempt to change the system and the owners of capital would use all their power to make sure that such controls were not implemented. Your solution is indeed the right way to proceed, but politically unlikely to be implemented.
LikeLike