It is important to close questions quickly, because otherwise they attract the kind of answers we don't want to have on this website.
Why it was the right decision to to close this question quickly can be seen in the duplicate of the question the author created a while later. It quickly received two answers which were merely short, personal opinions not backed by any sources or research. I can hardly imagine that this is the kind of answer any reader of Politics.SE expects to such a complex issue as globalization.
We expect people to post answers which are more than just a short summary of what they feel is right. We expect people to actually do research and show that research to prove they didn't just made it up. We also don't want answers which are just opinions. We want answers which look at the issue from a neutral point of view and provide the information one needs to form an own opinion. We also don't want partial answers which only address one aspect of the question. We expect answers which look at the topic from all angles and provide an all-encompassing answer.
In order to provide that grade of quality, a question must be reasonably scoped. Globalization is a very complex issue. Whole libraries of books and research papers were written about that issue. And a proper answer to the question "can globalization be reversed" would be yet another book. As the help center says: "Your questions should be reasonably scoped. If you can imagine an entire book that answers your question, you’re asking too much."
Regarding deleted comments: The purpose of comments is to provide feedback to a question or answer in form of asking for clarification or providing constructive criticism for the content of the post.
Some of the comments I deleted were mini-answers which attempted to answer the question. There is a reason why the Stackexchange software separates comments and answers to a question. If someone wants to answer a question, they should write a "real" answer which fulfills our above described quality criteria. When they don't feel like investing that much work, they shouldn't try to circumvent that by just writing it as a comment.
Others were meta-comments which addressed the question being closed. They were not addressing why it was closed, but just the fact that it was closed at all. This belong on meta and not on the question itself.
Regarding the personal critique why I didn't reply to this meta-question earlier: The author was clearly angry at me, and I was angry at him. As you can see from the chat discussion between him and yannis, you can see that civilized discourse wasn't really possible at that moment:
Venture2099: Not happy with Phillip acting like a little bitch
yannis: Stop acting like a buffoon please.
When people end up in petty name-calling, you are on an emotional level where conflict resolution is impossible. So I decided to sleep a night about the issue to give both me and the author a while to calm down and address the issue in a civilized manner.