Originally Posted by CarlosTheGaucho

A) All these countries have in common is that they have production that enables the capital to gain more profit at a lower production cost.

But these profits are typically NOT redistributed at a higher than the least necessary rate in these countries. The profit is used to generate even more profit on the capital market. Don't forget these companies must satisfy their shareholders in the first place. This also brings structural unemployment to the countries that used to have production.

And since the majority of people will NOT ever have exceptional skills - this is Gauss curve, the real question is what to do with them. These are the ones revolting.
These new countries will go through exactly the same phase once the production leaves.

B) Indeed - it brought major increase in profits for capital, but the trickle down effect does NOT work. This has been proven over and over again - concentrating more profit in less hands will NOT bring redistribution of wealth in terms of increasing the living standards or tax revenue. It's exactly the opposite - all it brings is more income inequality.

This may sound like a passage from Marx's capital, and there were some petrified economists in 2007/08 that brought that book to that year's economic forums, but this part is proven to work exactly like that. So again the question is how to deal with this, since this is hardly sustainable.

C) The living standards on the west have been declining since the early 70's at the time when Globalization started and banks were let run wild.

Corporations are now in the position to negotiate with governments and make them bend to their rules while redistributing as least as possible in the country they're dealing with.
All this brings is more money flowing in the artificial economy (corporations / banking / capital market) and less money that's recycled (in terms of actual people exchanging it).
Again the question is how to tackle this - since this is hardly sustainable in the long term.

Not saying that simple and likable slogans that may have little base in real maths are the answer, but these are the empiric facts. Just hinting at what's the reason of the current revolt.
If you don't satisfy your electorate's basic needs, or at least aren't able to communicate to them your policies effectively, they will vote for somebody who will promise them to do so.