[neutrino]

Respectfully submitted for your comments.

[Joe Bonforte]

Calling something old or obsolete does not tell what's wrong with it. What specific evidence do you have that Ricardo was wrong, or that conditions have changed to invalidate his theory?

Contrariwise, there are many studies that show that the best single predictor of economic health for a nation in the last two hundred years is how open it is to trade with the rest of the world. That would seem to completely validate Ricardo.

Newton discovered the Theory of Gravity in the same general time period. We now plot rocket courses with it. Ricardo's theory of comparitive advantage, while not quite so clean and elegant, it is ultimately based in simple mathematics. (See http://william-king.www.drexel.edu/top/prin/txt/trade/itrade1.html for details.)

Now, you may claim that a simple model does not account for complex conditions, but you must show where it breaks down. For Newtonian physics, the famous three-body problem was never exactly solved for gravitation attraction and motion, though one can use the theory to get estimates that agreed closely with reality. So even when the complexity ramped up, the theory worked.

Then relativity came along, and showed that Newtonian physics failed in some extreme circumstances (particularly high velocity). The theory was refined by Einstein for those extreme conditions. This did not affect the theory for routine cases.

So - where do you think Ricardo's theory is breaking down? What evidence do you have? Note that anecdotes don't count - you have to provide evidence about overall or aggregate effects, since that's what Ricardo's theory talks about.

And how do you explain that the US unemployment rate has dropped since NAFTA was implemented? How do you explain how protectionist regimes like Japan have such terrible economic problems? (They have protected their internal industries for decades, and run a huge trade surplus. If Ricardo were wrong, then they would be doing great, right? But they're not - a fifteen year recession so far. Why?)

I know you anti-free-trade guys want in your hearts desperately for the facts and the economic theory to support you. Unfortunately for you, they don't. (Fortunately for the rest of us, because open trade is the source of much of our wealth as a society.)

[JLS]

Excellent idea, let me add to it that Newton wrote in the latter part of the 17th century.

http://www-gap.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/Mathematicians/Newton.html

The world has changed considerably since the late 1600s. We have new technologies, new political and social paradigms, machines that Newton could not have imagined and entire new fields of science. Nevertheless, we ignore all of that and continue to use physics and mathematical ideas from the late 1600s.

We could establish a sunset rule for all knowledge and once it got old enough we could be as dim as the Dims. But as a higher tax guy you probably are a Dim.

[sully777]

Let's throw in the trash all the classics. We can add Newton, Locke, and Smith. Einstein's theories and laws are getting old. In fact, Karl Marx wrote his easily-refutable crap around 1844. Better throw that in the can! Come to think of it the US constitution is old, but not as old as the Magna Carta. Let's throw all things in the trash as we walk down this Maoist/Khmer Rouge nightmare

Idiot!

[tallhappy]

This is like the argument liberals make about the Consstitution. They love to say how different things are today compared to the 1700's and how, therefore, these old documents written way back when, or old ideas and ideals of men like Jefferson or Washington cannot possibly apply today and need to be updated etc...

[billybudd]

You're right. We should also throw out Aristotle and Plato.

[Libertarianize the GOP]

On a Conservative discussion forum why would an idea be dismissed as invalid just because it has been around for a while and is generally accepted.

[js1138]

I believe Newton and Galileo did their best work before 1823. What is it about age that makes a idea obsolete? Come to think of it we are still using a Constitution written before 1823.

[neutrino]

Ping for your consideration and comments.

[A.J.Armitage]

I'd be willing bet money that what you want instead turns out to be a rehash of the even older pre-Adam Smith mercantilism.

[Hank Rearden]

You're right! Our professional politicians are so much smarter now than they were 200 years ago.

They should run everything. The economy, every aspect of our lives - everything.

Good thinking.