I know that Schumpeter style economists will say untrammeled creative destruction is a good thing, but I think that's more contentious.
But isn't the inevitable effect of comparative advantage that someone goes to the wall in the medium term (albeit everyone will ultimately be better off when used as directed)?
IANAE, but it just seemed to me from the way Jerome described it that the "Dutch disease" triggered the same mechanisms one would expect to see when transitioning to a comparative advantage scenario. "Ideas or the lack of them can cause disease." - Kurt Vonnegut
This takes on real-world proportions when applied to rain-forest clearance for monocultures. Yet we're still being told, in the name of comparative advantage, that the Doha Round is the way to go. When locusts move on, they leave nothing behind
http://guerby.org/blog/index.php/2006/04/23/65-salades-et-tomates
Not true - at least if you speak about economists the way we (economists) define our profession, not the way people like Klaus think of themselves. Even a simplest Schumpeterian model can generate a lot of waste, when someone else creatively destroys your business because your investment doesn't enter his profit function.
