I'd also like to point at the fact that libertarians, of which I semi-am one, said that global trade plus technology were positive sum games for all people. Th

I'd also like to point at the fact that libertarians, of which I semi-am one, said that global trade plus technology were positive sum games for all people. That even if some benefited much more than others, that this was a rising tide for all boats. That was the message. Plainly something went wrong for the average Westerner with that hypothesis over the last few decades. That is the source of the dissatisfaction, not just that things leveled off but the sense of being lied to on top of that. I think it definitely used to be true, there are good grounds for believing so if you examine the charts of wealth and wages. But ironically even at the time Reganism and Thatcherism became popular, historical trends became somehow detached. In fact the world we live in today makes total sense if you believe we had a lot of globalization but no genuine technological change ex computers. It is actually hard to put a finger on why this happened, Larry Summers, most especially Peter Thiel, Tyler Cowen and Robert Gordon have good insights on technological stagnation but it is still hard for most people to even conceptualize in their mental framework. The kind of shit the New York Times regularly prints is basically from an parallel universe. That is a giant problem because Westerners by population size are by far the most influential. When a rebellion or revolt happens it would have planet wide affects. We should also note that once you take China out of the equation, the whole global better lives, better average living narrative looks preposterous, which it actually is for both Africans and most Westerners.