Economists are now admitting that they were wrong about globalization

Even if you didn't vote for Trump or don't like him, Trump has been critiquing globalization for years before he came to office especially with regards to China. Yet their conclusion is that he is a demagogue. The very people who cheered on the very globalization that made some of us rich but left many of our fellow citizens in the dust.

I assume they agree that the purpose of globalization was to make everyone better of not just some and that those that would benefit from it most should be paying back their fair share to the communities.

Today we have a situation where it's impossible to save your way to retirement, where the cost of living has increased and the middle class decreased and we did so while increasing the deficit of the country.

Post WW II the US had about 50% of the global GDP. The situation was huge inequality between nations. That was politically untenable and the solution was seen to be development of other nations' economies. Some of this was accomplished with things like the Marshall Plan and some with programs of foreign aid to underdeveloped countries.

However, the US taxpayer would never support a large enough foreign aid budget to really solve the problem. On the other hand, free trade could be sold politically, companies would export capital and know how to lesser developed countries, and the problem of inequality between nations could be ameliorated. Of course, it was at the expense of the US worker whose standard of living stagnated from the '70s onward. But the bet was that other nations would develop slowly enough, US consumers would enjoy cheap goods, business would make lots of money, and that US standard of living wouldn't actually decrease significantly for a politically potent group.

Of course, there aren't enough resources in the world for all 7.5 billion people to enjoy US standard of living. Therefore, the implication of greater equality of standards of living between nations is less equality of standards of living within nations. Less inequality internationally implies greater inequality intra-nationally.

And that is exactly what has happened. The world, including the US, will tend towards the situation in India where there is extreme wealth and extreme poverty side by side.

2) Beginning with Goldwater and culminating with Reagan, the American public internalized economic libertarian ideas.[1] (See, e.g., https://www.nytimes.com/1964/10/25/archives/the-case-against...) By the 1990s the Democratic Party had lost their multi-generational primacy, and the only politicians able to stem the loses were politicians like Bill Clinton (see also Tony Blaire in the U.K.), whose strategy was to co-opt libertarian economics.

[1] The reasons for this are complex. For example, Southern conservative politics becoming vociferous advocates for deregulation and free trade obviously has more than a little to do with Nixon's infamous "Southern strategy". Republicans promised southern states a larger share of industrial manufacturing by 1) shifting it from the North and 2) extracting concessions from foreign manufacturers to build domestic manufacturing plants as part of trade negotiations.