Problem is that China had both cost advantage (both human capital and energy) and a large internal market.
If as a company you decided not to invest and build a factory in China, you were quickly losing vs your competitor.
The solution to this problem for EU and US however won't be as simple..
Once China built an industrial base, and has cheap energy sources, you cannot directly out compete it. You can only try to maintain your own industrial base by locking competitors out of your market. There is no other way. In the end that's the result of globalization - US&EU companies thought they can produce cheap, sell expensive. Instead they trained their own competition, and due to weak IP laws enabled this exodus of industry know-how to China.
Now, if China was a smaller country - let's say Japan or Turkey - this wouldn't be such a huge problem.
But for the global economy, having a single country that produces 80% of all consumer goods is also a huge problem. That was never the case before with the US (except maybe directly after WW2). US+Europe, Japan+Korea, Canada, Australia supply chain was much more diverse and distributed.
What happens now is dangerous because in the end the profits are not spread across the world, and economies of scale cause this monopoly to appear, which will be hard to mitigate.
Can countries "slow" down China and move production to diversified locations? For that to work, coordinated tariffs for advanced goods from China would have to be introduced, and production reallocated to multiple other countries - very difficult to execute..
Poland receives subsidies in exchange for opening its market and for following the tax and labor regulations. All the poorer EU countries do. In the end, it is Germany that benefits the most from large markets for its goods. It would have probably been way more beneficial in the 90s for Poland to have a more closed economy, emulate South Korea and become a "small China in EU" with cheap labor and factories.
I believe it was a grave mistake of the Western Europe to invest so much in producing high-tech goods in China, when during a period of 1990-2005 they had access to cheap and educated labor force close in Eastern Europe. You should never transfer your strategic industries into countries that you cannot influence or control.
I believe there is some merit in the fact that everything is overanalyzed now. Every new trend, fashion, or viral phenomenon is analyzed and commoditized so quickly that it kills its originality. Movies are generated, not directed (Netflix). Music lacks character — where are the crazy, drunken stars from the ’70s, ’80s, and ’90s?
I also agree that there may be some connection with the use of mobile phones, which has actually made personal contact more difficult. Previously, if you wanted to discuss something with your neighbor or an old acquaintance, you had to call them and talk. Now it’s often just a chat. People are less aggressive and less willing to take risks.
It reminds me of an excellent Stanisław Lem sci-fi novel, Return from the Stars, where an astronaut returning from a mission finds that people on Earth have neutralized themselves from all aggressive impulses, and he is perceived as a wild and dangerous “prehistoric” man.
Another factor could also be that populations are growing older, which means less risky behavior and fewer “youth” crimes.
On the other hand, perhaps the norm to which we should compare the 20th century is the Middle Ages, when for hundreds of years everyone lived in essentially the same way.
Imagine great, "bright" future (few years down the road), where the "gatekeepers" of knowledge will be AI Browsers. 90% of people will get average, generic information from AI content farms. They will be happy consuming AI Slop, steered gently towards products and services of the highest bidder. They will be "trained" to consume specific content. Imagine LLM-like deep learning algorithms that can learn what is your weakness by reading your chats and conversations and exploit it later by providing you crafted content.
10% minority of people will be - just like today - using traditional, manual processes, reading real books, and savoring original websites made by real people. In the long run, part of society will forget what it was like to consume original works. Neal Stephenson in "Anathem" predicted this quite well.
Once China built an industrial base, and has cheap energy sources, you cannot directly out compete it. You can only try to maintain your own industrial base by locking competitors out of your market. There is no other way. In the end that's the result of globalization - US&EU companies thought they can produce cheap, sell expensive. Instead they trained their own competition, and due to weak IP laws enabled this exodus of industry know-how to China.
Now, if China was a smaller country - let's say Japan or Turkey - this wouldn't be such a huge problem. But for the global economy, having a single country that produces 80% of all consumer goods is also a huge problem. That was never the case before with the US (except maybe directly after WW2). US+Europe, Japan+Korea, Canada, Australia supply chain was much more diverse and distributed.
What happens now is dangerous because in the end the profits are not spread across the world, and economies of scale cause this monopoly to appear, which will be hard to mitigate.
Can countries "slow" down China and move production to diversified locations? For that to work, coordinated tariffs for advanced goods from China would have to be introduced, and production reallocated to multiple other countries - very difficult to execute..