> On the economics issue though, readers should know he disagrees with economists, who nearly universally agree that trade with China benefits Americans as a whole, with the caveat that there are concentrated losses in certain populations.
The thing is: economists are hardly unbiased and neutral. Their theories are far from scientific truth, and typically embed significant political content.
For instance: "benefit" can be a highly political term. How do "economists" define it and is that the definition we should be using?
> Paul Krugman and other mainstream trade experts are now admitting that they were wrong about globalization: It hurt American workers far more than they thought it would. Did America’s free market economists help put a protectionist demagogue in the White House?
The thing is: economists are hardly unbiased and neutral. Their theories are far from scientific truth, and typically embed significant political content.
For instance: "benefit" can be a highly political term. How do "economists" define it and is that the definition we should be using?
This is an interesting article on the subject:
https://foreignpolicy.com/2019/10/22/economists-globalizatio...
> ECONOMISTS ON THE RUN
> Paul Krugman and other mainstream trade experts are now admitting that they were wrong about globalization: It hurt American workers far more than they thought it would. Did America’s free market economists help put a protectionist demagogue in the White House?