Again, it often seems the way to win a debate is to change what it is people think the debate is about – even to twist the story altogether. So I think that saying: ‘refighting the “sweatshops, good or bad?” argument of the 1990s … is not what this is about’ is a useful intervention. Even with the typical liberalism of The Economist. (More fundamental questions about labour and economics might be asked.) What do you think?