[billybudd]

We should reconsider their ideas based on new information. Or are we to worship Zeus and Hera?

Of course not. I'm just saying that you shouldn't dismiss ideas just because they're old. If you can point out some assumptions Ricardo maked about the world that were true back then but not now, that's good. But the age of an idea shouldn't be relevant.

[neutrino]

If you can point out some assumptions Ricardo maked about the world that were true back then but not now, that's good. But the age of an idea shouldn't be relevant.

Very well. From the link at the beginning:

"In arguing for free trade, Ricardo formulated the idea of comparative costs, today called comparative advantage. Comparative advantage—a very subtle idea—is the main basis for most economists' belief in free trade today. The idea is this: a country that trades for products that it can get at lower cost from another country is better off than if it had made the products at home."

Now the question is - is this really true? If we assume a balance of trade, wherein each country produces something of value to the other, and there is a fair balance of trade, then it should. What if the Chinese impose an artificial restriction on domestic wages so that not just one product, but essentially all products can be produced at lower cost there? Does the assumption still hold true?

Many here will shrug and respond that it will. This is an assumption, not knowledge. It could reasonably be argued that I don't know that the assumption is false. That, also, would be true.

The simple truth is that, per our economists, things aren't working as expected. I contend that means it is time to look at the underlying assumptions.