The pandemic and its effects showed that the cost benefits of globalization are beaten by the national security benefits of onshoring. That doesn't seem like t

The pandemic and its effects showed that the cost benefits of globalization are beaten by the national security benefits of onshoring. That doesn't seem like the way to put it. What you seem to mean is "the pandemic showed serious downsides to globalization and I imagine onshoring would work better". The thing is, the pandemic indeed showed downsides to globalization, financialization and extreme capitalization of industries (though with chip manufacture, that's hard to avoid). But a significant part of this involves companies having no interest in abandoning or modifying their approaches even when it had horrible consequences - because usually it didn't having horrible consequences for the company in particular. Hospitals still only entered into multi-year supply contracts with factories even if, in the case of PPEs, it their workers and patients were dying of covid, 'cause emergency acquisition sets a bad precedent. Etc. States could ameliorate some of these problems with simple regulations but that didn't happen and seems unlikely now 'cause profits matter. I can imagine some gestures to onshoring 'cause that's extra money that can thrown at companies but it seems pretty certain the mechanisms of "globalization" will continue.