tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7225373.post4444116090404961770..comments2024-02-29T03:34:23.190-05:00Comments on Who Were the Sea Peoples?: A dialogue between an economist and an unemployed steel workergcallahhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10065877215969589482noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7225373.post-40848106758005329052016-04-05T01:33:42.615-04:002016-04-05T01:33:42.615-04:00Do someone promise you you wouldn't be an idio...Do someone promise you you wouldn't be an idiot in this life? They lied.gcallahhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10065877215969589482noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7225373.post-8906016282970842832016-03-26T13:38:38.085-04:002016-03-26T13:38:38.085-04:00Who promised Joe anything? What did they promise? ...Who promised Joe anything? What did they promise? A job for life? Unicorns?<br /><br />Individuals trade with each other. Sometimes that involves Joe. Most of the time, it doesn't. <br /><br />If Joe's wife left him for another man, should the police bring her back?Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09991489099436845783noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7225373.post-30928689937002876332016-03-26T01:15:29.209-04:002016-03-26T01:15:29.209-04:00Is this "compensation principle" a real ...Is this "compensation principle" a real thing?Samson Corwellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10148822362930969284noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7225373.post-64594974182478040542016-03-26T01:14:15.644-04:002016-03-26T01:14:15.644-04:00Jason Alexander hits back.<a href="http://consultingbyrpm.com/blog/2016/03/a-falsifiable-back-test-of-the-krugman-callahan-hypothesis.html" rel="nofollow">Jason Alexander hits back.</a>Samson Corwellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10148822362930969284noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7225373.post-66326000014937758172016-03-25T11:30:59.405-04:002016-03-25T11:30:59.405-04:00Yes, this hits the nail on the head in the respect...Yes, this hits the nail on the head in the respect that the argument for free trade is a highly abstract model "that leaves out large parts of the real world in order to reach a determinate result." <br /><br />In this case, the Ricardian a priori argument for free trade, requires two conditions to work properly, as follows:<br /><br />(1) Domestic factors of production like capital goods and skilled labour are not internationally mobile, and instead will be re-employed in the sector/sectors in which the country’s comparative advantage lies;<br /><br />(2) Workers are fungible, and will be re-trained easily and moved to the new sectors where comparative advantage lies.<br />----------<br />As is admitted even by Mises (Mises, <i>Human Action: A Treatise on Economics</i> 4th rev. edn, p. 164), by the late 19th century assumption (1) was questionable. Today it is also the case that both capital goods themselves and investment money for production are very mobile, so that (1) is also not true. Proposition (2) is also questionable in many cases.<br /><br />Once capital becomes extremely mobile internationally, we no longer have comparative advantage, but absolute advantage. It is not at all clear that free trade under “absolute advantage” is beneficial to all nations. The neoclassical and Misesian argument for free trade is dependent on the capital of one country remaining in that country and being put to work in some other productive domestic industry, where comparative advantage lies. This is not what happens today, where capital from Western countries seeks absolute advantage in the developing countries.Lord Keyneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06556863604205200159noreply@blogger.com