Display:
Indeed. This non-economist has wondered for some time now whether comparative advantage theory really stands up empirically.

The fact is that what we're experiencing right now is a top-down disaster. -Paul Krugman
by dvx (dvx.clt ät gmail dotcom) on Mon Jun 12th, 2006 at 04:41:38 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I have said this before and I've said it again until an actual economist sets me straight: Ricardo's comparative advantage assumes that capital and labour are tied in place and only goods move [and shows that by allowing goods to move more freely you get more goods for everyone)]. Since the global financial markets were fully liberalized (and this happened within the last 20 years, if I am not mistaken), capital is what moves most freely, followed by goods, and labour is what moves the least [as Adam Smith already pointed out: labour is the least mobile of the factors of production]. The way I see it, the developed economies are being decapitalized as we speak, not only by outsourcing and investment in foreign markets [which I call capital flight when I am not feeling too charitable], but by the debt-for-consumption binge that is keeping us on this side of the brink of depression.

I long ago wrote a diary on comparative advantage (you could call it a first stab at "the irreversible thermodynamics of free trade", the Ph.D. dissertation I will never write ;-) which was well-received...

Here are our latest discussions of comparative advantage.

guaranteed to evoke a violent reaction from police is to challenge their right to "define the situation." --- David Graeber citing Marc Cooper

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Mon Jun 12th, 2006 at 04:58:13 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Mig,

It strikes me that I've read a lot about the mythic status of "Comparative Advantage" in connection with proof using simple game theory. Indeed, if you inspect the average college economics course you are almost guaranteed to find a very simple simulation set up to demonstrate how Comparative Advantage is real, despite its "counterintuitive nature."

(For myself I sometimes think that great play is made about the "counterintuitive nature" of Comparative Advantage in order to bolster it's mystique, but that is a discussion for another day.)

I seem to recall that you are in the simulation field to some degree at work. Would it possible to set up one of these "simple" demonstrations of Comparative Advantage, but add in movement of capital to that of goods?

by Metatone (metatone [a|t] gmail (dot) com) on Mon Jun 12th, 2006 at 06:00:23 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Metatone, we need to e-mail back and forth on this, or maybe even talk about it in person.

guaranteed to evoke a violent reaction from police is to challenge their right to "define the situation." --- David Graeber citing Marc Cooper
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Mon Jun 12th, 2006 at 07:50:10 AM EST
[ Parent ]
ok.
by Metatone (metatone [a|t] gmail (dot) com) on Mon Jun 12th, 2006 at 08:02:43 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Better to set-up a diary so the rest of us can watch and chime in? Or at least cc me!
by Colman (colman at eurotrib.com) on Mon Jun 12th, 2006 at 08:17:58 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Ok, let me rephrase.

Metatone, spell out the model you want to simulate in a diary, and I'll run the simulations.

guaranteed to evoke a violent reaction from police is to challenge their right to "define the situation." --- David Graeber citing Marc Cooper

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Mon Jun 12th, 2006 at 08:20:58 AM EST
[ Parent ]
The mythical "counter-intuitive" status of comparative advantage may have something to do with Paul Samuelson, whose introductory textbook I hate:
Stanislaw Ulam once challenged Nobel laureate Paul Samuelson to name one theory in all of the social sciences which is both true and nontrivial. Several years later, Samuelson responded with David Ricardo's theory of comparative advantage:
That it is logically true need not be argued before a mathematician; that it is not trivial is attested by the thousands of important and intelligent men who have never been able to grasp the doctrine for themselves or to believe it after it was explained to them. --Paul Samuelson


guaranteed to evoke a violent reaction from police is to challenge their right to "define the situation." --- David Graeber citing Marc Cooper
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Mon Jun 12th, 2006 at 07:53:46 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Display:
Login
. Make a new account
. Reset password
Occasional Series