Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

The Theory of Comparative Advantage
The International Economics Study Center ^ | Unknown | Steven Suranovic

Posted on 03/19/2004 7:54:53 PM PST by Luis Gonzalez

The theory of comparative advantage is perhaps the most important concept in international trade theory. It is also one of the most commonly misunderstood principles. There is a popular story told amongst economists that once when an economics skeptic asked Paul Samuelson (a Nobel laureate in economics) to provide a meaningful and non-trivial result from the economics discipline, Samuelson quickly responded with, "comparative advantage."

The sources of the misunderstandings are easy to identify. First, the principle of comparative advantage is clearly counter-intuitive. Many results from the formal model are contrary to simple logic. Secondly, the theory is easy to confuse with another notion about advantageous trade, known in trade theory as the theory of absolute advantage. The logic behind absolute advantage is quite intuitive. This confusion between these two concepts leads many people to think that they understand comparative advantage when in fact, what they understand, is absolute advantage. Finally, the theory of comparative advantage is all too often presented only in its mathematical form. Using numerical examples or diagrammatic representations are extremely useful in demonstrating the basic results and the deeper implications of the theory. However, it is also easy to see the results mathematically, without ever understanding the basic intuition of the theory.

The early logic that free trade could be advantageous for countries was based on the concept of absolute advantages in production. Adam Smith wrote in The Wealth of Nations,

"If a foreign country can supply us with a commodity cheaper than we ourselves can make it, better buy it of them with some part of the produce of our own industry, employed in a way in which we have some advantage. " (Book IV, Section ii, 12)

The idea here is simple and intuitive. If our country can produce some set of goods at lower cost than a foreign country, and if the foreign country can produce some other set of goods at a lower cost than we can produce them, then clearly it would be best for us to trade our relatively cheaper goods for their relatively cheaper goods. In this way both countries may gain from trade.

The original idea of comparative advantage dates to the early part of the 19th century. Although the model describing the theory is commonly referred to as the "Ricardian model", the original description of the idea can be found in an Essay on the External Corn Trade by Robert Torrens in 1815. David Ricardo formalized the idea using a compelling, yet simple, numerical example in his 1817 book titled, On the Principles of Political Economy and Taxation. The idea appeared again in James Mill's Elements of Political Economy in 1821. Finally, the concept became a key feature of international political economy upon the publication of Principles of Political Economy by John Stuart Mill in 1848.(1)

David Ricardo's Numerical Example

Because the idea of comparative advantage is not immediately intuitive, the best way of presenting it seems to be with an explicit numerical example as provided by David Ricardo. Indeed some variation of Ricardo's example lives on in most international trade textbooks today. (See page 40-5 in this text)

In his example Ricardo imagined two countries, England and Portugal producing two goods, cloth and wine, using labor as the sole input in production. He assumed that the productivity of labor (i.e., the quantity of output produced per worker) varied between industries and across countries. However, instead of assuming, as Adam Smith did, that England is more productive in producing one good and Portugal is more productive in the other; Ricardo assumed that Portugal was more productive in both goods. Based on Smith's intuition, then, it would seem that trade could not be advantageous, at least for England.

However, Ricardo demonstrated numerically that if England specialized in producing one of the two goods, and if Portugal produced the other, then total world output of both goods could rise! If an appropriate terms of trade (i.e., amount of one good traded for another) were then chosen, both countries could end up with more of both goods after specialization and free trade then they each had before trade. This means that England may nevertheless benefit from free trade even though it is assumed to be technologically inferior to Portugal in the production of everything,.

As it turned out, specialization in any good would not suffice to guarantee the improvement in world output. Only one of the goods would work. Ricardo showed that the specialization good in each country should be that good in which the country had a comparative advantage in production. To identify a country's comparative advantage good requires a comparison of production costs across countries. However, one does not compare the monetary costs of production or even the resource costs (labor needed per unit of output) of production. Instead one must compare the opportunity costs of producing goods across countries.

A country is said to have a comparative advantage in the production of a good (say cloth) if it can produce cloth at a lower opportunity cost than another country. The opportunity cost of cloth production is defined as the amount of wine that must be given up in order to produce one more unit of cloth. Thus England would have the comparative advantage in cloth production relative to Portugal if it must give up less wine to produce another unit of cloth than the amount of wine that Portugal would have to give up to produce another unit of cloth.

All in all, this condition is rather confusing. Suffice it to say, that it is quite possible, indeed likely, that although England may be less productive in producing both goods relative to Portugal, it will nonetheless have a comparative advantage in the production of one of the two goods. Indeed there is only one circumstance in which England would not have a comparative advantage in either good, and in this case Portugal also would not have a comparative advantage in either good. In other words, either each country has the comparative advantage in one of the two goods or neither country has a comparative advantage in anything.

Another way to define comparative advantage is by comparing productivities across industries and countries. Thus suppose, as before, that Portugal is more productive than England in the production of both cloth and wine. If Portugal is twice as productive in cloth production relative to England but three times as productive in wine, then Portugal's comparative advantage is in wine, the good in which its productivity advantage is greatest. Similarly, England's comparative advantage good is cloth, the good in which its productivity disadvantage is least. This implies that to benefit from specialization and free trade, Portugal should specialize and trade the good in which it is "most best" at producing, while England should specialize and trade the good in which it is "least worse" at producing.

Note that trade based on comparative does not contradict Adam Smith's notion of advantageous trade based on absolute advantage. If as in Smith's example, England were more productive in cloth production and Portugal were more productive in wine, then by we would say that England has an absolute advantage in cloth production while Portugal has an absolute advantage in wine. If we calculated comparative advantages, then England would also have the comparative advantage in cloth and Portugal would have the comparative advantage in wine. In this case, gains from trade could be realized if both countries specialized in their comparative, and absolute, advantage goods. Advantageous trade based on comparative advantage, then, covers a larger set of circumstances while still including the case of absolute advantage and hence is a more general theory.

The Ricardian Model - Assumptions and Results

The modern version of the Ricardian model and its results are typically presented by constructing and analyzing an economic model of an international economy. In its most simple form the model assumes two countries producing two goods using labor as the only factor of production. Goods are assumed homogeneous (identical) across firms and countries. Labor is homogeneous within a country but heterogeneous (non-identical) across countries. Goods can be transported costlessly between countries. Labor can be reallocated costlessly between industries within a country but cannot move between countries. Labor is always fully employed. Production technology differences across industries and across countries and are reflected in labor productivity parameters. The labor and goods markets are assumed to be perfectly competitive in both countries. Firms are assumed to maximize profit while consumers (workers) are assumed to maximize utility. (See page 40-2 for a more complete description)

The primary issue in the analysis of this model is what happens when each country moves from autarky (no trade) to free trade with the other country. In other words what are the effects of trade. The main things we care about are trade's effects on the prices of the goods in each country, the production levels of the goods, employment levels in each industry, the pattern of trade (who exports and who imports what), consumption levels in each country, wages and incomes, and the welfare effects both nationally and individually.

Using the model one can show that, in autarky, each country will produce some of each good. Because of the technology differences, relative prices of the two goods will differ between countries. The price of each country's comparative advantage good will be lower than the price of the same good in the other country. If one country has an absolute advantage in the production of both goods (as assumed by Ricardo) then real wages of workers (i.e., the purchasing power of wages) in that country will be higher in both industries compared to wages in the other country. In other words, workers in the technologically advanced country would enjoy a higher standard of living than in the technologically inferior country. The reason for this is that wages are based on productivity, thus in the country that is more productive, workers get higher wages.

The next step in the analysis is to assume that trade between countries is suddenly liberalized and made free. The initial differences in relative prices of the goods between countries in autarky will stimulate trade between the countries. Since the differences in prices arise directly out of differences in technology between countries, it is the differences in technology that cause trade in the model. Profit-seeking firms in each country's comparative advantage industry would recognize that the price of their good is higher in the other country. Since transportation costs are zero, more profit can be made through export than with sales domestically. Thus each country would export the good in which they have a comparative advantage. Trade flows would increase until the price of each good is equal across countries. In the end, the price of each country's export good (its comparative advantage good) will rise and the price of its import good (its comparative disadvantage good) will fall.

The higher price received for each country's comparative advantage good would lead each country to specialize in that good. To accomplish this, labor would have to move from the comparative disadvantaged industry into the comparative advantage industry. This implies that one industry goes out of business in each country. However, because the model assumes full employment and costless mobility of labor, all of these workers are immediately gainfully employed in the other industry.

One striking result here is that even when one country is technologically superior to the other in both industries, one of these industries would go out of business when opening to free trade. Thus, technological superiority is not enough to guarantee continued production of a good in free trade. A country must have a comparative advantage in production of a good, rather than an absolute advantage, to guarantee continued production in free trade. From the perspective of a less developed country, the developed countries' superior technology need not imply that LDC industries cannot compete in international markets.

Another striking result is that the technologically superior country's comparative advantage industry survives while the same industry disappears in the other country, even though the workers in the other country's industry has lower wages. In other words, low wages in another country in a particular industry is not sufficient information to know which country's industry would perish under free trade. From the perspective of a developed country, freer trade may not result in a domestic industry's decline just because the foreign firms pay their workers lower wages.

The movement to free trade generates an improvement in welfare in both countries both individually and nationally. Specialization and trade will increase the set of consumption possibilities, compared with autarky, and will make possible an increase in consumption of both goods, nationally. These aggregate gains are often described as improvements in production and consumption efficiency. Free trade raises aggregate world production efficiency because more of both goods are likely to be produced with the same number of workers. Free trade also improves aggregate consumption efficiency, which implies that consumers have a more pleasing set of choices and prices available to them.

Real wages (and incomes) of individual workers are also shown to rise in both countries. Thus, every worker can consume more of both goods in free trade compared with autarky. In short, everybody benefits from free trade in both countries. In the Ricardian model trade is truly a win-win situation.

Defending Against Skeptics:
The True Meaning and Intuition of the Theory of Comparative Advantage

Many people who learn about the theory of comparative advantage quickly convince themselves that its ability to describe the real world is extremely limited, if not, non-existent. Although the results follow logically from the assumptions, the assumptions are easily assailed as unrealistic. For example, the model assumes only two countries producing two goods using just one factor of production. There is no capital or land or other resources needed for production. The real world, on the other hand, consists of many countries producing many goods using many factors of production. Each market is assumed to be perfectly competitive, when in reality there are many industries in which firms have market power. Labor productivity is assumed fixed, when in actuality it changes over time, perhaps based on past production levels. Full employment is assumed, when clearly workers cannot be immediately and costlessly moved to other industries. Also, all workers are assumed identical. This means that when a worker is moved from one industry to another, he or she is immediately as productive as every other worker who was previously employed there. Finally, the model assumes that technology differences are the only differences that exist between the countries.

With so many unrealistic assumptions it is difficult for some people to accept the conclusions of the model with any confidence, especially when so many of the results are counterintuitive. Indeed one of the most difficult aspects of economic analysis is how to interpret the conclusions of models. Models are, by their nature, simplifications of the real world and thus all economic models contain unrealistic assumptions. Therefore, to dismiss the results of economic analysis on the basis of unrealistic assumptions means that one must dismiss all insights contained within the entire economics discipline. Surely, this is not practical or realistic. Economic models in general and the Ricardian model in particular do contain insights that most likely carry over to the more complex real world. The following story is meant to explain some of the insights within the theory of comparative advantage by placing the model into a more familiar setting.

A Gardening Story

Suppose it is early spring and it is time to prepare the family backyard garden for the first planting of the year. The father in the household sets aside one Sunday afternoon to do the job but hopes to complete the job as quickly as possible. Preparation of the garden requires the following tasks. First, the soil must be turned over and broken up using the roto-tiller, then the soil must be raked and smoothed. Finally, seeds must be planted or sowed.

This year the father's seven year old son is anxious to help. The question at hand is whether the son should be allowed to help if one's only objective is to complete the task in the shortest amount of time possible.

At first thought, the father is reluctant to accept help. Clearly each task would take the father less time to complete than the time it would take the son. In other words, the father can perform each task more efficiently than the seven year old son. The father estimates that it will take him three hours to prepare the garden if he works alone, as shown in the following table.

Task Completion Time (hours)
Roto-Tilling 1.0
Raking 1.0
Planting 1.0
Total 3.0

On second thought, the father decides to let his son help according to the following procedure. First the father begins the roto-tilling. Once he has completed half of the garden, the son begins raking the roto-tilled section while the father finishes roto-tilling the rest of the garden plot. After the father finishes roto-tilling he begins planting seeds in the section the son has already raked. Suppose the son rakes slower than the father plants, and that the father completes the sowing process just as the son finishes raking. Note this implies that raking takes the son almost 2 hours compared to one hour for the father. However, because the son's work is done simultaneously with the father's work, it does not add to the total time for the project. Under this plan the time needed to complete the tasks in shown in the following table.

Task Completion Time (hours)
Roto-Tilling 1.0
Raking & Planting 1.0
Total 2.0

Notice that the total time needed to prepare the garden has fallen from 3 hours to 2 hours. The garden is prepared in less time with the son's help than it could have been done independently by the father. In other words, it makes sense to employ the son in (garden) production even though the son is less efficient than the dad in every one of the three required tasks. Overall efficiency is enhanced when both resources (the father and son) are fully employed.

This arrangement also clearly benefits both the father and son. The father completes the task in less time and thus winds up with some additional leisure time which the father and son can enjoy together. The son also benefits because he has contributed his skills to a productive activity and will enjoy a sense of accomplishment. Thus both parties benefit from the arrangement.

However, it is important to allocate the tasks correctly between the father and the son. Suppose the father allowed his son to do the roto-tilling instead. In this case the time needed for each task might look as follows.

Task Completion Time (hours)
Roto-Tilling 4.0
Raking 1.0
Planting 1.0
Total 6.0

The time needed for roto-tilling has now jumped to 4 hours because we have included the time spent traveling to and from the hospital and the time spent in the emergency room! Once the father and son return, the father must complete the remaining tasks on his own. Overall efficiency declines in this case compared to the father acting alone.

This highlights the importance of specializing in production of the task in which you have a comparative advantage. Even though the father can complete all three tasks quicker than his son, his relative advantage in roto-tilling greatly exceeds his advantage in raking and planting. One might say that the father is most-best at roto-tilling while he is least-best at raking and planting. On the other hand, the son is least-worse at raking and planting but most-worse at roto-tilling. Finally, because of the sequential nature of the tasks, the son can remain fully employed only if he works on the middle task, namely raking.

Interpreting the Theory of Comparative Advantage

The garden story offers an intuitive explanation for the theory of comparative advantage and also provides a useful way of interpreting the model results. The usual way of stating the Ricardian model results is to say that countries will specialize in their comparative advantage good and trade them to the other country such that everyone in both countries benefit. Stated this way it is easy to imagine how it would not hold true in the complex real world.

A better way to state the results is as follows. The Ricardian model shows that if we want to maximize total output in the world then,

first, fully employ all resources worldwide;

second, allocate those resources within countries to each country's comparative advantage industries;

and third, allow the countries to trade freely thereafter.

In this way we might raise the well being of all individuals despite differences in relative productivities. In this description, we do not predict that a result will carry over to the complex real world. Instead we carry the logic of comparative advantage to the real world and ask how things would have to look to achieve a certain result (maximum output and benefits). In the end we should not say that the model of comparative advantage tells us anything about what will happen when two countries begin to trade, instead we should say that the theory tells us some things that can happen.


TOPICS: Business/Economy; Culture/Society; Front Page News; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: boreme; economics101; shootme; snoozealert; trade
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 101-120121-140141-160 ... 261-269 next last
To: Luis Gonzalez
Our competitive comparative advantage is in our obvious expanded productivity, and our affluent market place.

Productivity and personal wealth are not products. If India is so good at software development don't you think they would have a higher level of productivity? Higher productivity currently means fewer people working more hours not the utopian idea of fewer workers working the same hours producing more. The intent of higher productivity is to improve our quality of life, not dimish it by reducing our time with our families.

We have the ability to not only sell more computers in our home market, but to export them out to ther nations.

Our market is already saturated and computers are a commodity in this modern age. If we are no longer developing high-tech software/hardware do you see growth potential in this segment of the market?

We can make both the components, and the computers.

We haven't made the components in the US in years and I doubt we have enough engineers left in this country to compete with Taiwan. I assembled computers in high-school and sold them for a weekly commission check. Any moron can assemble their own PC from components, you don't even have to worry about IRQs anymore.

Computers are an extremely low profit business and like most commodity industries profits are only generated through volume. The only volume sales will be to developing nations. Since we cannot build commodity items like computers domestically cheap enough to sell overseas we have to manufacture them overseas.

Don't confuse the software industry with the PC market. Software is extremely high margin once R&D costs have been recouped for a base product. Showing Indian and Chinese companies how to compete in these high margin industries is f'ing stupid because that is our comparative advantage, lets not throw it away by giving them the goose.
121 posted on 03/20/2004 6:23:56 PM PST by RockyMtnMan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 104 | View Replies]

To: CrucifiedTruth
The day before the Russians abolished price controls, the streets and markets were devoid of consumer goods. The day after the Russians abolished price controls, the streets and markets were full of consumer goods, and people were buying, selling, and trading as if Communism had all been a very bad dream -- which it was.

The Soviet Union failed because people had no incentive to do more than the absolute minimum it took to collect a paycheck. If you are going to get the same pay no matter how hard you work, you are not going to work very hard.

Entrepreneurs work hard because they want to get rich, or at least comfortable, or at least have some extra walking around money. And only entrepreneurs are willing to take chances. Everybody else loves safety.

Cuba is instructive on this point. All over the world, people make a little extra money over and above their regular wages by doing things like cutting hair for the neighbors, or crocheting dolls, or taking photographs at weddings, or making fudge, or selling Avon. In Cuba, this is outlawed. It's sadistic, it's insane, but that's Communism for you.
122 posted on 03/20/2004 7:09:17 PM PST by CobaltBlue
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]

To: Luis Gonzalez
BTTT
123 posted on 03/20/2004 7:11:23 PM PST by Fiddlstix (This Space Available for Rent or Lease by the Day, Week, or Month. Reasonable Rates. Inquire within.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CrucifiedTruth
I hate to risk the invocation of Godwin's law here, but the primary proponent of autarky (producing everything you need in your own country) in the 20th century was, in fact, the Nazis.

Farmer subsidies drive our businesses offshore. Fannie Farmer just moved their factories to Mexico because they couldn't sell candy competitively using American sugar -- too expensive due to the tariffs.
124 posted on 03/20/2004 7:15:55 PM PST by CobaltBlue
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies]

To: Luis Gonzalez
Roger that about Batista. Cuba, like many another Latin American country, has lurched from "strong man" to "strong man." None of whom delivered on his promises.

I find it incomprehensible. I love the relatively neat and orderly processes of law and constitutions.

Maybe it has something to do with literacy? If you can't read, you get taken advantage of? But I think Cuba's literacy rate is not low, so maybe that's not it.

It's been rather a long time since I interacted with Latin American students but my recollection was that they tended to believe a lot of myths about capitalism. We have a lot of the tin-foil, black helicopter types here in the US as well, but when I was in college it seemed to me that this was more pronounced in Latin Americans. Then again, I've discovered that Russians and Eastern Europeans find Larouche fascinating, they think maybe finally they are hearing the truth about Americans.
125 posted on 03/20/2004 7:22:44 PM PST by CobaltBlue
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies]

To: bondserv
Why apprentice bright children for blue collar jobs, when you could train them for white collar jobs? Do you really believe that blue collar labor is the highest and best use of highly intelligent children?

And why are you so down on science?

Seems to me that you want to condemn your children to a second class existence, without regard for their potential. And this is a classic example of hiding their light under bushels and burying their talents, and the Lord condemned this.
126 posted on 03/20/2004 7:28:41 PM PST by CobaltBlue
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 78 | View Replies]

To: Luis Gonzalez
I went to boarding school with Batista's daughter and the daughter of the Cuban leader who preceded Batista -- can't remember his name, you probably do if you are Cuban. They were best friends.

Didn't like me because I was too weird, but that's another story. No skin off my nose, I thought they were silly cows.
127 posted on 03/20/2004 7:33:53 PM PST by CobaltBlue
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 102 | View Replies]

To: Willie Green
Charles Lindburgh was a Nazi sympathizer. That's well known. He was given prizes by the Nazis. They admired him, and he returned the favor.

This was all long before WWII or the Holocaust, so I am not saying that he was a traitor or that he admired the Nazis for killing Jews.

When the Nazis got started, their big thing was that they were anti-Communist. And in fact they killed a lot of Communists, as well as Socialists and trade unionists.
128 posted on 03/20/2004 7:38:05 PM PST by CobaltBlue
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 107 | View Replies]

To: Luis Gonzalez
In fairness to Lindbergh -- when the Nazis got started, in 1933, they did seem to have discovered some admirable ways of accomplishing things. It was in large part illusion, but they were masters of illusion.

German industry has always been admirable. There is simply something about the German people that supports excellence in science, factories, mathematics, philosophy.

The earliest concentration camps were for Communists, Socialists, trade unionists, and similar "enemies of the Reich." The attacks against the Jews came later, after they had consolidated their power base by killing off their domestic political rivals.

So, while Lindbergh's position on "inferior races" can be construed as support for the Final Solution, I think that's really not fair to the historical record. Lindbergh may have been too credulous, but he was not a fiend.
129 posted on 03/20/2004 7:46:23 PM PST by CobaltBlue
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 112 | View Replies]

To: CobaltBlue; Luis Gonzalez
Charles Lindburgh was a Nazi sympathizer. That's well known.

No he wasn't. That's the smear.
Charles Lindbergh was a member of the America First Committee.
The AFC was founded at Yale Law School by four students: Bob Stuart, Eugene Locke, Potter Stewart and Gerald R. Ford. The first two would become U.S. ambassadors; Stewart, a Supreme Court justice; and Ford, a president.

In its statement of principles, the AFC declared that it stood for "an impregnable defense" and believed "American Democracy can best be preserved only by keeping out of the European War." It was open to all EXCEPT "Nazists, Fascists, Communists or members of other groups that place the interests of any other nation above those of our own country." Its patriotism was unpartitioned and undiluted.

He was given prizes by the Nazis. They admired him,

Everybody gave Lindbergh prizes and admired him.
His solo transatlantic flight made him the most famous person on the face of the planet.
He was more popular than Neil Armstrong, Elvis and the Beatles all wrapped up into one.

and he returned the favor.

Nah. He only admired their state-of-the-art military aviation technology.
And why wouldn't he?
Sheeeesh. The socialists in FDR's New Deal had scuttled our military spending and our military aviation capability wasn't worth crap.
That's why FDR's socialists DESPISED and smeared Lindbergh: he was an America First! CONSERVATIVE.

Louie, I think it's absolutely hilarious that, in your previous post, Mary Mostert would spin this smear against Lindbergh to highlight the hypocrisy of today's left-wing 'Rats. The trouble with you is that you don't know your left from your right in American politics. Or perhaps it's because you're actually a marxist yourself that you'd swallow this smear against Lindbergh hook, line and sinker.

130 posted on 03/20/2004 8:24:38 PM PST by Willie Green (Go Pat Go!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 128 | View Replies]

To: CobaltBlue
(producing everything you need in your own country)

Who said everything and when?
7 trillion in debt and 500 billion annual deficit comes actually from importing everything, not producing it. Barring the non-producing service sector and the building industry, pretty much everything else is imported. So it's Nazi to want to leave in an economically solvent and independent country. Well, doesn't matter how you call it, people still want it - the better word for it is patriotic.
131 posted on 03/20/2004 8:31:22 PM PST by CrucifiedTruth (The Crucified Truth lives forever.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 124 | View Replies]

To: CrucifiedTruth
...want to leave live...
132 posted on 03/20/2004 8:34:01 PM PST by CrucifiedTruth (The Crucified Truth lives forever.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 131 | View Replies]

To: CrucifiedTruth
No, you are distorting what I said.

The Nazis had very good reasons for believing in autarky. Germany is land-locked, and her political opponents, Great Britain and the USA, were great maritime nations.

In order to interdict German imports during war, all it took was blockades, which were predictable.

Certainly one cannot blame the citizens of another country for loving their own country better than any other.

Nevertheless, it is true that Nazi controls on the free movement of capitol from inside Germany to outside, and vice versa, had extremely detrimental effects on the German economy in the 1930's.
133 posted on 03/20/2004 9:48:43 PM PST by CobaltBlue
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 131 | View Replies]

To: CobaltBlue
And why are you so down on science?

I thoroughly enjoy science. (My major in college was geology, for golf course architectural purposes). :-) Science has many applications in daily life, however it makes an unfaithful God, with all the changing every day and all. "We thought this, now we think this, no that's wrong too. With better technology we will know more!"

You seem to have a Medieval view of apprenticeship. I am not talking about blue collar "guild sanctioned" jobs. I am talking about thinking people entering the job market that can pursue whatever career they choose, because of their ability to think.

I gained very little from my schooling, and use very little of the information I was forced to memorize and repeatedly go over as busywork on my free time. Fortunately I had several mentors from the prior generation who instructed me in the art of thinking, which the public schools I went too never covered.

Most Professor's stayed in the "impressing juveniles" business because they feared competing in the real world. There are exceptions, but a majority of them can't think clearly enough to program their VCR. Educated beyond their intelligence, with the emotional maturity of a 22 year old. It's no wonder the vast majority are so liberal.

P.S. For those who are God gifted teachers, the above rant has no application at all.

134 posted on 03/20/2004 10:15:50 PM PST by bondserv (Alignment is critical!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 126 | View Replies]

To: HighWheeler
Comparitive Advantage may be easier to understand if the example was taken down to single people.

----

I have a $35 dollar an hour advantage doing engineering over plumbing, while he gets to do plumbing for $50 an hour.

Oh, he gets to do a $65 an hour job for $50 but your "comparative advantage" theory goes out the window for him when HE (plumber) needs YOU (engineer) but can't afford your exorbitant rate...You both lose.

135 posted on 03/20/2004 11:57:30 PM PST by lewislynn (Free traders know it isn't , they just believe cheap popcorn makers raises their living standards.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: CrucifiedTruth
7 trillion in debt and 500 billion annual deficit comes actually from importing everything, not producing it. Barring the non-producing service sector and the building industry, pretty much everything else is imported.

So, we import everything and export little pieces of green paper. Useless for anything except buying stuff. So who gets the short end of that stick? Us? We get cars and stereos and stuff from WalMart.

If they just keep the pieces of paper, we can keep that cycle going forever.

136 posted on 03/21/2004 1:12:43 AM PST by Toddsterpatriot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 131 | View Replies]

To: Texasforever
Ok, Portugal produces wine for $5 a bottle and cloth for $5 per yard. England forgets about producing wine and only produces cloth for $8 per yard. Who are you going buy your wine and cloth from?

Now you live in England and there is a $5 traiff on cloth from Portugal, Now who are you going to buy your wine and cloth from?

Now Portugal is a free trade country and funds government with income taxes that take 50% your income. England is a traiff country that does not have an income tax and funds government with a $5 dollar traiff on cloth. Who is better off? The Portugesse or the English.

137 posted on 03/21/2004 1:31:16 AM PST by jpsb (Nominated 1994 "Worst writer on the net")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Toddsterpatriot
So, we import everything and export little pieces of green paper. Useless for anything except buying stuff. So who gets the short end of that stick? Us? We get cars and stereos and stuff from WalMart.

You need to brush up on that 'economics' thing... We get a few things that end up in the landfills pretty soon. They get
1. Manufacturing plants
2. Knowhow
3. Engineering experience and incentives
4. Employment and financing for their own scientific research
5. Business infrastructure
6. Military use of the obtained technology
7. Political leverage over the US.
8. Weakening of the US economy by extracting the production capabilities out of it. .
9. The interest on those "little pieces of green paper" that you have no idea about
138 posted on 03/21/2004 7:07:40 AM PST by CrucifiedTruth (The Crucified Truth lives forever.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 136 | View Replies]

To: CobaltBlue
No, you are distorting what I said.

You are totally confused on who the distorter is. You don't seem to know what balanced trade is. You don't seem to know about the political consequences of heavy economic dependence. You don't seem to know the long history of US protectionism that actually made this country what it is (or was). You are not on the subject. And you call me the N word, then you call me a distorter. You have zero credibility in my eyes.
139 posted on 03/21/2004 7:27:21 AM PST by CrucifiedTruth (The Crucified Truth lives forever.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 133 | View Replies]

To: bondserv
Excellent rant. I can't add anything except that I'm still struggling to erase the nonsense fed to me by the public education system.
140 posted on 03/21/2004 7:32:30 AM PST by CrucifiedTruth (The Crucified Truth lives forever.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 134 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 101-120121-140141-160 ... 261-269 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson