What is Reddit's opinion of Kicking Away the Ladder: Development Strategy in Historical Perspective?

From 3.5 billion Reddit comments

> Unfortunately, most countries practice bad economic policy, partly because the IMF / World Bank / rich country economic advisors got things really wrong. They recommended free markets and open borders, which are good for rich countries, but bad for developing ones. Developing countries need to start with planned economies, then phase in free market policies gradually and in the right order. Since rich country economists kept leading everyone astray, the only countries that developed properly were weird nationalist dictatorships and communist states that ignored the Western establishment out of spite. But now the economic establishment is starting to admit its mistakes, giving other countries a chance to catch up.

Scott, bless his soul, stays true to Quokka-speak, but I can't not suspect a Straussian reading here.

Also reminds me of Biden's attempts to create an «alternative to BRI with its debt-traps».

There's no known feasible path to full decarbonization without transitioning coal inputs into natural gas. There's no natural gas provider with the possibility to reach the whole Eurasia with pipelines other than Russia. Other options (Iran and Qatar) compete with Russia only in subregional terms. No one can offer natural gas in bulk, by pipe, and everywhere.

Other than oil and gas, Russia's mineral resources are colossal. Without Russian minerals, you cannot grow crops, and electronics become scarce for everybody, so the West cannot grow its Knowledge sector markets.

The Russian Federation cannot expect to match USSR-level outputs, as it has half its population.

You are wrong about industrialization. The fastest way to industrialize is by imports substitution. The West made to Russia the opposite it has done elsewhere. If I were a Russian industrialist, I'd be popping champagne.

sorry, but capitalism is not defined by free-markets.

free-markets don't even exists. free markets are just a fantasy in the neo-liberal imaginarium, every country in this world intervene in markets (u.s,germany,taiwan,canada...)

look at the USA (the dream of liberals in latin america), they always intervene in their economy, since the begining of their nation.

I say that basing my argument onHa Jo Chan: Kicking away the ladder

Democracy has been an abject failure by any objective metric. China is definitive proof of a long-apparent economic thesis, that planned economies have much higher growth rates than market economies. A book I recommend for this topic is Kicking Away the Ladder by Chang; this is a historical perspective on the economic development on the West that argues pretty persuasively, in my opinion, that the best economic development in the West came under substantial subsidization that looks suspiciously like a less sophisticated version of the Chinese model. More importantly, though, the West is actively committing planetary-scale ecological genocide, largely because voters in the United States are afraid of fission power. Emissions are rising in Europe for the first time in years because they're dismantling their own infrastructure in response to their own voters being objectively suicidal.

I'm looking forward to the stability that will come in the decade after we rip ourselves apart, assuming there's no nuclear exchange, which is probably likely. Hopefully geoengineering can avert the worst results of democracy; I think after this point it won't be appealing any more. The East will stay largely single-party authoritarian and the West will become more or less the same, only maybe with a little more technocracy versus kleptocracy. That's the best we can hope for.

Okay, so here are the things in my comment you did not address:

• Public ownership of industry / "the means of production" / agriculture

• a right to housing, food, medical care

• atheism

• equality for women and ethnic outgroups

• suppression of nationalism

The rest of your comment makes me think you missed this:

>What I imagine you are talking about are very weak and right-wing social democratic policies. This isn't socialism. Ask the French Communist Party what they think of the Socialists.

Planned economics is a cornerstone of socialism. You can have markets involved ala Yugoslavia, but it is still planned. This is actually more effective historically (I recommend Kicking Away the Ladder for more on this), but it is still wildly unpopular in the west. Infrastructure like rail has been privatized in every Western country, and over time if liberal governments continue to stand we'll see more of the social-democratic welfare state rolled back and replaced by privatization and austerity as happened after 2008. Finally, while there are very few people advocating for "stakeholder capitalism" it is also not popular, not endorsed by any major American political parties, and is questionably legal in the United States.

Finally... even if you could come up with sources that say any of what you've said is popular in the West actually is, that's still only the West, which means its the global minority of humans by population and by economic output. There are far more people not in the West, who tend to have even harsher views on many of the things you avoided mentioning, along with not having the standard economic progressive beliefs.

Magyarul- soha? Nem hiszem, hogy valaha is megkozelitjuk oket. Nemcsak a sajat inkompetenciank es korrupcionk miatt- nekik nagyon nincs erdekeben a dolog. (https://www.amazon.co.uk/Kicking-Away-Ladder-Development-Institutions/dp/1843310279 elegge informativ volt az ugyben.)

One country is poor and exports coal, the other exports construction equipment. Which one gains more from this transaction? How does one country go from the one that only exports low value-added commodities to high value-added goods?
The answer to that is not free trade. http://www.amazon.com/Kicking-Away-Ladder-Development-Perspective/dp/1843310279

In fact the U.S. and Canada a long time ago were those poor countries that merely exported natural resources.

India should do what benefits India.

Just ignore these Western cries and whining "Do as we preach, not what we actually did!"

Its just another attempt at kicking away the ladder.

According to Ha-Joon Chang, a developmental economist, it is because these countries have had periods of time in their history in which they were highly protectionist of their own industry and aimed at being export-oriented. In his book Kicking Away the Ladder, he mentions some of these policies which these countries had implemented:

• Introduction of state-owned model factories (pilot plants) in industries where the private sector was lacking
• Huge state role in building infrastructure such as rail
• Copying of successful foreign institutions and systems such as the army, civil law, criminal law, banking etc
• Tariffs to protect infant industries, subsidizing the import of raw materials
• In the case of Japan, their military build-up led to technological spillover
• Export subsidies to promote an export-oriented economy
• Tariff rebates for imported raw materials and machinery for export industries
• Indicative planning to reduce "wasteful competition"

I'd strongly recommend reading the book (you can find a pdf online, yarr) if you're interested about this. Many of these policies were not invented by the East Asian states, but by Britain, France, Prussia, the USA etc. They were just copied.

El tema no es solo qué se exporta, ni principalmente eso, sino la industrialización de cada país.

Todos los países ricos en la actualidad -sin excepción- están altamente industrializados, y por ello todos los gobiernos del mundo, se supone, persiguen la industrialización. La polémica en México más bien es si es mejor el modelo de intervención del estado o el de "la mejor política industrial es no tener política industrial", el dejar al mercado la industrialización del país.

Te recomiendo un excelente libro, que explora la forma histórica cómo los países ricos se industrializaron: https://www.amazon.com/Kicking-Away-Ladder-Development-Perspective/dp/1843310279

El resumen es que, salvo unas cuantas excepciones, la vía fue en dos etapas: primero, el impuso a la industria propia mediante el proteccionismo del mercado local y la intervención del estado, y luego, el impuso del librecomercio sin trabas, una vez alcanzado un nivel de desarrollo industrial que permitía a las empresas nacionales competir internacionalmente.

En otras palabras, los países industrializados llegaron a esa condición haciendo lo contrario a lo que ellos mismo dicen que debemos hacer los otros países para llegar ahí.

They're so full of shit even before this.

https://www.amazon.com/Kicking-Away-Ladder-Development-Perspective/dp/1843310279/

https://www.amazon.com/Bad-Samaritans-Secret-History-Capitalism/dp/1596915986/

tldr=The west tells weak nations to adopt free trade yet it did the opposite when it was growing.

>> the Chinese government is helping its companies compete in ways that the US doesn’t do and doesn’t like, and it is making plans to do that (e.g., the China 2025 plan) while the US doesn’t make such plans and objects to China making them.

That is nonsense. America has very high traffis today and even higher ones in the past [https://www.amazon.com/Kicking-Away-Ladder-Development-Perspective/dp/1843310279/ and https://www.amazon.com/Bad-Samaritans-Secret-History-Capitalism/dp/1596915986/]. It blocks Chinese products using lies about national security and hoaxes about Chinese "spying" [while actually running the world's largest illegal spying operation]. It heavily subsidizes American agribusiness etc [see http://www.amazon.com/Confessions-Economic-Hit-John-Perkins/dp/0452287081/], its arms industry, and heavily funded its space and military industries, whose discoveries benefited its private corporations. It even uses its military to overthrow governments so its corporations can dominate and plunder nations [http://www.amazon.com/Killing-Hope-C-I-Interventions-II--Updated/dp/1567512526/]. Yet, they're "against market manipulation"? Don't make me laugh.

 

All this crap about is just a distraction from the main issue. Whites want to stay on top and will lie, cheat, and steal to do it. Just look at Harvard university. For years, they swore up and down it's because Asians just weren't good enough. The reasons kept morphing.

Asians are stupid --> intelligent but uncreative robots --> creative now but lack "soft skills"

Each and everyone one of them turned out to be a lie. Can we please finally stop being duped by these pathological liars. How many times do they have to do this before we learn?

Oh, Krugman. It's a trope among economists that the plebs do not understand comparative advantage. They seem to loathe admitting that the idea is, in fact, not that hard, yet the assumptions its relevance hinges on are much harder to justify, so even reasonable people can persist in their skepticism. Krugman laments having to stoop to baby-talk, but it's precisely beyond the baby-talk level, the "wine and cloth" stuff, where the unadulterated virtue of free trade starts to unravel. Real nations have limited and unequal state capacity, human capital, resource pool, and they also have geopolitical ambitions, alliances, values beyond profit; which is precisely why they, not just some laymen, sometimes discard Ricardo and bail out of profitable international deals. How does America calculate Huawei-CCP ties and Taiwan sovereignty into its trade policy? How does China factor in the increase in dependence on a capricious partner who can weather separation better, thanks largely to its unprecedented role in the global financial system?

On net, Ricardian logic is sound and the case for international trade is still stronger than the case for autarky. But you do not need to look for "intellectuals" to have some legitimate holes in the narrative pointed out to you. Literally HuffPost would suffice. Or "Kicking away the ladder".

o kadar uzun oldu ki postu 2-3 seferde atacağım yorum yorum:

iktisat tarihi hiç okumadın değil mi lan? 2022 yılında adam kalkmış milton friedman, hoppe, rothbard falan önermiş bir de gerçekten bu kadar olur...

evladım free market ile büyüdüğünü iddia eden devletler çevreyi (periphery) sömürerek büyüdüler: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0305750X22002169 ha illa kitap istiyorsan: https://www.amazon.com/Kicking-Away-Ladder-Development-Perspective/dp/1843310279

kalkıp "tüm avrupada olan liberal görüş" falan demiş, lan evladım ayılıp bayıldığınız norveçte, borsadaki en büyük 7 şirketin hisselerinin yüzde 30 ile 75'i devlete ait...

tüm avrupa demiş ya, lan iktisat okumaya dün başlamış avel, avrupa birliği içinde common agricultural policy'nin bütçesi hakkında en ufak bir fikrin var mı? al ben göstereyim: https://agriculture.ec.europa.eu/common-agricultural-policy/financing-cap/cap-funds_en

The total allocation for the common agricultural policy (CAP) amounts to €386.6 billion, divided between two funds (often referred to as the “two pillars” of the CAP)

bu ne demek biliyor musun? adamlar 7 sene içinde çiftçilerine 386 milyar euro hibe edecekler demek, lan türkiyenin gsmh'sinin yarısı bu para, sen diyorsun ki türkiye liberal olsun, bizim çiftçimiz kalkıp 0 devlet desteği ile her 7 yılda bir türkiye gmsh'inin yarısı kadar hibe alan avrupa çiftçisi ile rekabet etsin... yazarken bile ellerim titredi lan bu bilgisizlik karşısında...

"japonya'dan abd'ye" demiyor mu bir de, lan dün doğmuş avel, daha geçen sene abd gitti ppp loan adı altında özel sektörüne 820 milyar dolar dağıttı, sonra da dedi ki bunları hibeye çeviriyorum sonuç olarak 740 milyar dolar hibe vermiş oldu (https://projects.propublica.org/coronavirus/bailouts/ ), sen diyorsun ki 1 yılda 800 milyar dolar hibe alan abd özel sektörü ile türk işletmecileri devletten sıfır yardım alarak kapışsınlar çünkü serbest ticaret...

oğlum siz niye sadece 2 kitap okuyup, iktisat tarihine hiç bakmadan liberal oluyorsunuz hı? Iktisat tarihini geçtim geçen seneden bahsediyoruz lan burada… ab’nin 2021-2027 politikasından bahsediyoruz lan…

> correlación

Correlación no es causa

En cuanto a lo otro, seguramente esto te llamara la atención

https://www.amazon.com/Kicking-Away-Ladder-Development-Perspective/dp/1843310279

Dette er hele poenget med tråden. Det er en selvfølge at etterspørsel etter olje og gass vil kollapse i fremtiden. Det viser du også til. Det kan skje om 10-15 år, eller om 30 år eller lenger. Ingen vet sikkert. Det må derimot skje om 10-15 år hvert fall for å unngå 3-4 grader oppvarming. Når det eventuelt skjer må Norge allerede ha etablerte internasjonalt konkurransedyktige næringer. Hvis ikke vil et langvarig fall i oljeetterspørselen kollapse økonomien.

MDG vil ikke avslutte oljeproduksjon i dag. De vil fase det ut over rundt en 15 års periode og i samme periode ha en storsatsing på nye næringer som kan ta over. Akkurat hva de næringene skal være må bestemmes av regjeringen i tett samarbeid med privat næring. MDG har vel en god del forslag som baserer seg på kompetanseoverføring fra oljeindustrien og der vi allerede er konkurransedyktige.

Istedenfor å vente og tviholde på olje til det plutselig går slutt og man sitter der uten noen alternativer, vil MDG istedenfor begynne omstillingen nå samtidig som vi fortsatt er rike og har muligheter til å etablere nye næringer som kan vokse seg store og klare å konkurrere internasjonalt tidlig. Hvis dette skjer for sent vil vi måtte etablere nye næringer under en økonomisk krise og konkurrere mot andre lands næringer som allerede har vokst seg store. De nye norske næringene vil selvfølgelig da utkonkurreres med en gang og vi har ikke olje og ingenting som kan erstatte det.

Som bringer meg tilbake til poenget. Folk som deg hater MDG pga følelsesladet hat uten å kjenne til noe som helst av hva de egentlig vil. Hvor har du fått for deg at MDG vil utfase oljen uten noen levedyktige alternativer? Dette er tvert imot akkurat det Høyre og AP fører oss til med deres politikk. Den eneste måten Norge skaffer nye næringer er ved at regjeringen satser og arbeider for det. Det er ikke noe som skjer av seg selv. Hvor er satsingene til AP og Høyre på dette? De er jo de som vil tviholde på olje helt til det plutselig går slutt uten å satse på nye næringer i mellomtiden. Istedenfor å la omstilling skje på våre vilkår vil de heller vente til vi tvinges til det i en økonomisk krise. MDG vil være tidlig ute med omstilling på våre vilkår. Det er selvfølgelig også gode klimaargumenter for å omstille så tidlig som mulig i tillegg til de åpenbare økonomiske argumentene. Hvis man så ender opp med å avslutte oljeproduksjon 15 år tidligere enn vi kunne ha gjort og går glipp av 100-300 milliarder per år (som er det oljesektoren bidrar med et typisk år) fra olje pga det så har det faktisk ingenting å si over de neste 100-200 år som er perspektivet vi må ha. Gjør man ikke omstillingen tidlig nok er tapet enormt mye mer og vil være over et mye lengre tidsperspektiv.

Er du faktisk interessert i hvordan land skaper nye konkurransekraftige næringer bør du lese denne boken: https://www.amazon.com/Kicking-Away-Ladder-Development-Perspective/dp/1843310279

In most settled legal contexts, it is commonly accepted or at least possible to enforce that for a given issue, arguments must fit into a certain timespan and everything beyond it is inadmissible. In more speculative ones, litigation often regresses to “who farted first” and meta-debate regarding the scope of relevant history. Obviously this is one such case.

I am sympathetic to the argument that, since emitting CO2 equals depletion of the commons in the name of a nation's competitive advantage (or at least, so the story goes), cumulative emissions (maybe per capita) are the metric to judge by. Have the developed nations not built their current prosperity on industrializing while burning through fossils? Are they not, essentially, demanding of the developing ones to cripple their nascent economies with modern climate regulations that deny them that sweet high-ERoEI window, to forever remain pitiful debtors and bleed human capital, further enriching the developeds? Is it not fair, therefore, to ask of the developed nations, when they call for “curbing emissions”, to share the burden of costs, providing some of that Energy Invested straight out of their plentiful wallets?

It's another conflict over the act of “kicking away the ladder” upon having climbed it. Developed countries have sorted out their territories by assimilating or exterminating disobedient tribes and annexing all they needed to annex; thus their new high-minded creeds of “inalienable human right to self-determination” and “rules-based order” constitute denying the same benefits of political stability and cohesion to less fortunate entities. Developed countries (all after Britain) have nurtured their industries via tariffs and pilfering know-how from even eariler movers; now they stand to benefit from free trade and IP protection on a global scale. If you cry out “quitsies, no stealing from now on!” as you stash away the loot, people will understandably feel pissed. And zero-sum logic of competition – for scarce resources, for opportunities to make a mess without repercussions, for chances to capture a market before the other guy, – means that this very act of demanding a change of rules when you're ahead looks just like theft with extra steps. What is the civilized answer to theft? “Pay up, white boy”.

I see much truth to this, but that's just because I'm closer to the side of LMDC. You're following the opposite reasoning; and realistically, “I got mine” is the gold standard of international relations, especially between those rich and those poor, the strong and the weak. A consistent and frank ethic to ground it in simply states that some peoples – for example, the English – are not merely more lucky or less scrupulous but spiritually and/or biologically superior to others, and that’s why they were the ones to build colonial empires, the first to industrialize, the first to deindustrialize, the first to become so productive they can afford “green” technology simultaneously with high standard of living, and also why they still have the capability to make demands of lesser folks, or threaten them with sanctions or whatnot. It is a result of a competition, and the competition was fair to the extent that market or evolution can ever be. Some derisively call this process “Moloch”, while others pray to “Gnon”. Alas, this ethic is not in vogue today. But it still looms implicitly over negotiations.

Still, it’s not like the developing countries only have chutzpah and appeals to compassion in their arsenal. The same people who like to talk about climate are also worried about another crisis, namely demographic one. As populations of developed countries age, the need for labor to keep economy afloat and pay social security… yadda yadda, just imagine Merkel rattling off this nonsense. With the same sort of logic as above, LMDC can argue that they have greater younger populations due to responsibly preserving natalist social attitudes longer into modernity, and that they must be compensated for every one of their precious citizens who moves over to the developed world. To the tune of X megatons’ worth of carbon credits, Y megawatt-hours of renewable energy capacity, or Z millions of dollars. What, freedom human rights you say? They’re happy to run from your shitholes you say? Well, now they’re not because we’re turning this into a national pride issue and creating legal and physical barriers to emigration. Good luck staying so awesomely competitive without Indian and Chinese workers in particular.

As we say in Russia, “people are the new oil”.

Renewable energy might be “cheap” even without subsidies. At least solar panelts have genuinely fallen in price. It’s a whole another issue to build the rest of the infrastructure making it remotely useful. Such as storage.

>If I expend energy carrying a rock down a mountain does my labor give it value?

I would like individual losses to be socialized to encourage a culture of innovation. Money should always pay your material cost but the maslow's head decides what have value, scredules objectives and propose improvements.

​

>forces of supply and demand inform the market of what goods and services are desired by the economy and how much profit there is to be made in goods and services

Free marketing gold rule I guess. "Please dont bail out banks". Aka Privatizing Profits And Socializing Losses of big ones.

"Development Strategy in Historical Perspective" say:

>(...) His conclusions are compelling and disturbing: that developed countries are attempting to 'kick away the ladder' with which they have climbed to the top, thereby preventing developing countries from adopting policies and institutions that they themselves have used.

Yo, you need to read about tariffs and why developed countries have all had tariffs in the past. https://www.amazon.com/Kicking-Away-Ladder-Development-Perspective/dp/1843310279

You're just being greatly mislead by politicians.

Relevant and highly recommended: "Kicking Away the Ladder"

I've had this conversation with a few other devs, but since I have your ear right now, I have to ask: Do you actually think the ideologies in the game are balanced? Do you think that if you ran observer mode and randomized the paths, the liberal AI would come out on top as often as the fascist or communist AI?

Because to me it seems like this is intentionally not the case. The overall theme of the historical point of view of the mod is that liberalism was the only viable ideology that could have emerged from the 20th century. I expect it to play like that, which is why I haven't played it. Are you telling me that it doesn't play like that, and it feels like anything is possible?

>It's kind of difficult to pass judgement on balance if you've never played the game.

I would say it's difficult to accurately measure game balance regardless. I'm relatively decent at HOI4 so I'm sure I could more or less do whatever I wanted to do within the simulation, but while I was initially excited about the ideological diversity in this mod, every single dev diary was basically "Fascism? Communism? It just didn't work OTL, and it can't work here!" This ruins the ideological diversity, IMO. It also betrays a sort of weird focus on realism in alternate histories that, again IMO, just guts the ability of a player to create their own narrative.

>If you've actually read about and played the mod, then you would know that the SPD and Labour paths are actually stronger than say, the DVP or the Tory paths.

This is exactly what I dislike. There should not be a large absolute strength differentials between different political paths in an alt-hist mod. Putting ideologies in but crippling them seems propagandistic to me.

>I do not consider the USSR to be socialist

Certainly if the USSR isn't socialist, neither are the SPD or Labour. So the exception proves the rule: only liberalism is empowered in the CBTS-world. Only liberalism can work.

Maybe this is unintentional, and just a result of being mired in the western, anti-communist, cold-war, historical perspective. Virtually everything I have read on this subreddit about the horrors of planned economies is directly contradicted in the excellent <em>Kicking Away the Ladder: Development Strategy in Historical Perspective</em>.

>If you're going to argue about them, I suggest you find some as well.

It doesn't strike me as very worth doing that if the response is going to be so ideologically motivated as to doom it from the start. And if you're willing to say the USSR isn't a true scotsman, I don't have a lot of faith that any historical argument I made would actually be fairly considered. Do you have an idea of what evidence could convince you?

It's a cliche of economic history. It's not really disputed by anyone except crackpots.

But sure -- check out Kicking Away the Ladder: Development Strategy in Historical Perspective, Aviva Chomsky's talks on youtube, or the AFAQ's section on Hong Kong. If you want more technical literature, I'd try /r/askhistorians.

edit -

One of the first places to look is actually to review the history and outcomes of the Washington Consensus; it's interesting what all the studies say. Also, Free Market Fantasies (transcript) is a good talk, focused on the US. Here's another two hour talk that goes into a lot of the details. There's also L'Encerclement, which is a decent overview of neoliberal doctrines.

And if you want to narrow it down, to talk about the Asian Tigers, for example, we can do that and go through the history on a case-by-case basis.

I guess being voted down for answering the question means the local Austrian heterodox armchair economists like the question but don't want an answer.

I've got to be honest, though I agree entirely with the theory presented in my previous post, I wasn't actually stating my own speculative opinion, I was (accurately) parroting the empirically based works of Chang. I think that if you read his book Kicking Away The Ladder, or for a more accessible work Bad Samaritans you would be hard pressed to disagree with his account of economic history.

Indeed, almost all predominant advocates of free trade begrudgingly accept Chang's view, but counter that such policies are no longer possible nowadays, given how globalized and intertwined the various national economies are. For an example of this kind of argument see Martin Wolf's Why Globalization Works.

I didn't really want to challenge your various retorts of my previous comment, because as I stated it's not my argument. But I would like to say that I think it is fair to describe your depiction of South Korea as inaccurate. Whilst true that Korea produce goods that are exported to other developed countries, this is no bad thing - all developed countries trade between each other, as it has been shown to be the most efficient way to produce things. Also, you imply that Korea has a particularly unequal society, but a cursory look at the national gini-coefficient rankings, which ranks countries by income equality, shows that Korea has a more equal society than Canada, France, Belgium, the UK, Ireland, Spain, Italy, New Zealand, and a significantly greater level of equality than the United States.

It's called Kicking Away the Ladder and it isn't new. Neoliberal capitalism is an ideological club to beat people with in the developed world, while doing the exact opposite of all that free market rhetoric (so far as it applies to anything except social services to working people), and a new colonial club to beat people with abroad. If you look at the countries that actually did develop, like the asian tigers for example, it should be obvious that they all rejected a market driven system in favor of protectionism and industrial policy.

So far as neoliberal globalization being so great for the countries that are the exploiters -- no, not really, doesn't look that way -- unless you're at the tippy-top of the top 1%, I think it's pretty doubtful.

I'd start by reading Kicking Away the Ladder, by the Cambridge economist Ha Joon Chang.

Then you might look at The Globalisation Paradox by the Harvard economist Dani Rodrik - in fact, I would start with that one, as Rodrik's a much easier read than Chang.

Or you might check out the new book by these two Nobel-winning economists. Unlike the others, I've not read it yet, but it notes that:

> “On trade it is the opposite,” Duflo says. “The evidence shows that people’s instinctive view of trade, that it does hurt them, has a lot that is true about it, and economists’ instinctive view on trade, that it should be good for everyone, is not correct.”

Or you could just let u/SideburnsOfDoom gaslight you into thinking that Dunt's argument has nothing to do with trade economics. Your call, I suppose. Remainers generally don't like learning anything, I've noticed.