JOHN YANG: Good evening.

I'm John Yang.

Across the globe this weekend, world leaders are trying to figure out how to respond to President Trump's attempt to reshape the global economy by imposing steep tariffs.

The European Union is already said to be drawing up a list of proposed retaliatory tariffs on U.S. products.

And a White House official says that more than 50 countries have contacted the administration so far to start negotiations on the import duties.

Meanwhile, after last week's market plunge, investors are anxiously awaiting the opening of Asian stock exchanges in just a few hours.

David J. Lynch is global economics correspondent for the Washington Post.

He has a new book coming out later this summer, "The World's Worst Bet: How the Globalization Gamble Went Wrong and what Would Make It Right. "

David, how big a departure is this new policy that President Trump is trying from what had been the previous policies?

DAVID LYNCH, Global Economic Correspondent, The Washington Post: This is an epic shift international economic affairs.

This is really an about face for the United States after 80 years of trying to lead the globe into a more integrated, seamless global economy with free trade, capital flows, investment moving easily across borders.

Now the president of the United States is saying, no, that was a bad deal.

It hurt Americans.

It allowed other countries to take advantage of us.

We're going to go in a different direction.

JOHN YANG: How are average Americans likely to feel the impact of this?

DAVID LYNCH: Higher prices.

JOHN YANG: On?

DAVID LYNCH: Just about everything you can think of.

I mean, he's taken a left, right shot at foreign trade with a 10 percent tariff on everything, just about every good that comes into the country, and then a separate round of much higher tariffs, up to 40 and 50 percent on some selected countries.

And so toys, furniture, smartphones, footwear, clothing, just about everything you can think of, alcohol that comes from another country, you're going to end up paying more for it.

JOHN YANG: And of course, he says, the payoff for this pain is going to be a revitalized American manufacturing sector.

Can tariffs rebuild American manufacturing?

DAVID LYNCH: Well, the President certainly think so.

Most economists would say no, or would say it would only occur over a quite long period of time and at enormous cost.

The way supply chains and manufacturing is set up now is optimized for cost and efficiency.

So anything we do to change that is going to, by definition, cost more and be less efficient.

Now, the President says essentially that's okay because we're going to get other benefits from it.

We'll get more manufacturing jobs that will help revitalize communities that have been hard hit by automation and import competition.

But it's a huge gamble.

And most economists, most people on Wall Street think he's wrong.

JOHN YANG: This is a sea change, as you said.

It's a sea change from globalization, which had been sort of the driving force since the Bill Clinton presidency.

What was the goal of globalization?

What was the idea behind it?

DAVID LYNCH: Well, the idea was simple.

Bill Clinton used to say, look, globalization is a fact, not a choice.

But this is something that's going to make us wealthier as a country.

If done right, it can contribute to peaceful relations.

It can contribute to political liberalization in places like China and Russia.

And for a long time it looked like that was happening.

But Clinton also said there are going to be winners and losers from this process.

That'll be OK because the winners gains will be so great they'll be able to provide for the losers to help those without the skills and education to capitalize on this.

But that second part never happened.

It was all just rhetoric.

JOHN YANG: And were there losers in this?

Were some people, some Americans left behind?

DAVID LYNCH: No question.

If you were - - and it was specific groups of people, those with the least amount of education, the least skills, engaged in basic manufacturing, they took it in the chops and they tended to be.

The companies they worked for tended to be clustered in certain communities.

So the cost of this process, which we should say brought enormous benefits to the country, kept inflation under control for two decades, gave us all wider product array, created a better mix of jobs in the economy.

But the costs were concentrated like an economic tumor in specific communities, and those people understandably grew to resent what was happening.

JOHN YANG: You say there are people with less education, which is also one of the deciding factors or ways of telling who people supported for president in the last election.

Did any of the architects of this globalization idea have second thoughts or acknowledge that some people lost out?

DAVID LYNCH: Yeah, people will say now, and really on both ends of the spectrum, people who worked in the Clinton administration and the Bush administration will say, you know, we should have done more.

We should have prioritized these distributional costs, done more in terms of labor market policies, in terms of relocation assistance, wage insurance and the like to help those people who really, through no fault of their own, were left behind.

But the problem now is that these issues had been left unaddressed for so long, it's metastasized into this problem that is now being treated with a very blunt solution.

JOHN YANG: David J. Lynch of the Washington Post, thank you very much.

DAVID LYNCH: Sure.