On 9/7/07, sartesian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> But isn't this entire notion, "comparative advantage," derived as it is
> from Smith's division of labor, simply baloney?

it's not _total_ baloney. And it's really from Ricardo more than
Smith. It's basically the idea that two traders that have different
resources can gain by exchanging with each other. Of course, it
doesn't have to be organized by markets. It could be organized
democratically instead, of example.

Mostly, the theory is much too abstract to correspond to the real
(empirical) world, which is structured by imperial domination.

> Where is the specialization on a national basis in the world economy?
> Anywhere?  Textile production in Guatemala in India, in Mali, was
> comparatively advantaged to textile production in the UK or Georgia
> based on what?  And is no longer advantaged when compared to China after
> the expiration of  the quota agreements?

nowadays, more enlightened economists know about "dynamic comparative
advantage." That is, a country like Japan can create its comparative
advantage. Of course, the US did it too, developing behind tariff
barriers between 1860 or so and 1945 or so.

Instead of Ricardian comparative adv., econ-types talk about
Heckscher-Ohlin models. But that doesn't change anything: a country
can change its factor proportions (organic compositions of capital,
etc.) to change the nature of its ideal specialization.

>  There is the historical movement, migration, transformation of capital
> and labor that has everything to do with class and absolutely nothing to
> do specialization, comparative advantages, or a natural sense of rhythm.

migration of labor and capital have nothing to do with comp. adv. or
H-O, since those theories assume mobility away (or do so in their most
popular forms).

A simple Ricardian story of comp. adv. can be jazzed up by asking what
kind of gains can be created if people move from the country with the
absolute disadvantage (Portugal) to the one with the absolute
advantage (England) and then have their labor productivity rise to
something similar to that prevailing in England. The "gains from
migration" are larger than the gains from trade.
--
Jim Devine / "We are what we repeatedly do. Excellence, then, is not
an act, but a habit." -- Aristotle.

Reply via email to