Its time IMO for what Richard Feynman would call...'getting back to first principles'.
And so we consider Adam Smith, a Professor of MORAL PHILOSOPHY when he wrote his noteworthy Wealth of Nations . Smiths critique of the then common practice of Mercantilism was done within a moral, philosophical, and a logical framework. Which tells me that any economic policy or practice which is ultimately derived from Wealth of Nations , including Ricardo's Comparative Advantage theory, and its applicability to todays Global Marketplace, must also be judged, ultimately, within a framework of practicality, logic, and morality.
Its high time also, IMO, for Economics to acknowledge, that if it claims to have any pretensions of being a 'science', its theorems and models must be continually examined, critiqued, and then modified if necessary, to insure that mathematical models fit in with new, emerging empirical (experimental in the case of science) data.
I don't sense a healthy skepticism in economists (particularly those dealing with Macro or Global economics issues) that is present in contemporary scientists. Perhaps economists should stop and read some History of Science, particularly the history of the New Physics in the early 20th century, to gain an appreciation for how established 'classical theory' gets modified or replaced when new data comes in which cant be explained.
There seems to be a certain aloofness or perhaps smugness in some contemporary economists, which may mask either an inherent underlying uncertainty (in denial), or, an 'answer in search of a question' mindset.
A perfect example is Paul Krugman , a principle architect of the contemporary 'Davos mindset', and a man who literally wrote the book (several key college textbooks on economic theory) on International or Global / Macroeconomics theory. Read one of his essays which I have linked to here. (note also with amusement his stated admiration for then President Clinton).
Paul Krugman Essay on Ricardo's Theory
I intend to study this article very carefully, and read Ricardo and Smith over time (dont have time now for exhaustive study), with the hope of understanding the underlying logical assumptions or premises to their work. I also intend to read essays and discussion on their works. I note here, for example, one key passage from Krugmans essay on Ricardos theory...
"The basic Ricardian model envisages a single factor, labor, which can move freely between industries. When one tries to talk about trade with laymen, however, one at least sometimes realizes that they do not think about things that way at all. They think about steelworkers, textile workers, and so on; there is no such thing as a national labor market. It does not occur to them that the wages earned in one industry are largely determined by the wages similar workers are earning in other industries. This has several consequences. First, unless it is carefully explained, the standard demonstration of the gains from trade in a Ricardian model -- workers can earn more by moving into the industries in which you have a comparative advantage -- simply fails to register with lay intellectuals."
I question this somewhat elitist principle of considering labor merely as a Commodity. Its better, IMO, to consider labor as a Resource...most contemporary management theory would agree with me.
After all, to become productive at what you do requires a certain underlying talent or aptitude, coupled with interest, coupled with years of learning how to do what you do with knowledge, best practices, and efficiency.
Applying a cookie cutter mindset to labor leads to a downward migration of levels of aptitude, worker motivation , and ultimately, loss of productivity....factors which Krugman deosnt consider in his simplified model. Krugman and his contemporaries have, IMO, no idea what makes up a trained, motivated, skilled, and ultimately...productive worker...they seem to know only what makes up a trained and skilled ZEN like Economist.
A commodity labor practice, wherein labor migrates to the nations with the lowest infrastructure levels, which also happen to be those with the lowest production costs (particularly if they are also totalitarian slave states, another factor Krugman and co ignore), leads IMO, to instability in societies. This problem will then call out for a Big Government type solution...one in which the Feds provide for basic subsistence needs, and constant job training and retraining for all these displaced workers.
Another result of this labor migration policy, (which is what optimistic macro economists would call Vertical Specialization) is Societal Stratification...IMO the prototypical 'Unintended Consequence' of a Capitalistic system which is intended to provide the most benefits for the greatest number of people, in accord with the goals of Smith.
Krugman epitomizes, IMO, the elitist Third Way Progressive .
It is because they never did real, high quality and productive work in their lives.