Been thinking about this. It's a bigger question than anybody really grasps, and a proper understanding of it, in my estimation, requires a lot of synthesis.
My hypothesis is that global shipping has been cost-effective because of the cost advantages of lax regulation, antiquated labor standards and a substantial disparity between "nations served" and "nations serving." On the one hand, COVID has forced a lot of industries to modernize. On the other hand, COVID has made awful occupations worse.
One of the things I've noticed among all the discussion of employment is that nobody is even bothering to capture the true number. We keep reporting the unemployment rolls as if they mean anything - if you can't collect unemployment, you have zero incentive to report and everyone's unemployment ran out three weeks ago yet this fact has been utterly absent from the discussions. Similarly, "global shipping dominance" will give you a list of flags-of-convenience which are absolutely, fundamentally, entirely irrelevant to the discussion. No, Greece and Panama are not the world's largest shipping nations. It's China by a mile.
I believe the shipping industry is exquisitely sensitive to political pressure. The Biden administration could fuck things up for China through executive order or bureaucratic (what an awful word) action. This bird?
That's a shipping interdiction bird.
I think the Biden administration, as well as the G8, could radically change the face of globalism without anyone getting a vote. Without anyone getting a memo. Do a google news search on "biden shipping" and you will see a mandate. 'cuz that's the other thing nobody is paying attention to - the Biden administration has been doing big, sweeping liberal shit that doesn't inflame any culture wars so the Right hasn't fucking noticed.