Not every negative aspect of changes caused by a market-driven process is actually an indication that those changes are negative as a whole. You should contemp

Not every negative aspect of changes caused by a market-driven process is actually an indication that those changes are negative as a whole. You should contemplate why the market caused resources to be allocated this way, instead of your preferred way, as usually the market allocates resources more efficiently than any single person could ever hope to achieve. It may turn out that the negative changes you perceived are more than balanced by other positive changes that you weren't able to perceive. In your example, the lives ot Chinese people who benefitted from those changes may have improved a lot more than whatever setbacks you may have experienced. Or maybe people around you can now buy things they couldn't afford before. That said, this is not always true, as markets don't take into account externalities. But still, we don't know of any system of global resource allocation better than letting markets do their job while governments try to control their externalities.