4 ms·

It's Retardo Ricardo's example; not mine. Why is his imbecile example greeted with gaping credulity when it is so obviously false? There is nothing intangible

It's Retardo Ricardo's example; not mine. Why is his imbecile example greeted with gaping credulity when it is so obviously false? There is nothing intangible about the example if you live in Portugal. Nice ad hominem BTW; about right for a "Hayakan."

andrewjl 6y ago
Saying the Ricardo's theory is generally sound when taking into account intangibles is not gaping credulity. You seem to mistake that for unqualified support of what he wrote. You then deployed a quote by a scholar with an obvious axe to grind, confusing the discussion still further. All to distract from a banal, unalloyed statement that trade can be positive-sum and hey maybe we should think about how to encourage more of that, with Ricardo providing excellent scaffolding to build upon. To drill into the details further, Ricardo's combined idea of trade, specialization, and economies of scale does not mean that some countries must specialize in high-tech "good" industries and others must stick to commoditized, negative-externality-filled "bad" industries. His work didn't address that distinction at all, which is its limitation. Reading that into what he wrote is zero sum thinking. Countries can develop a basket of industries to specialize in, and if they plan carefully, can strategically do so to develop a stronger economy. It doesn't require state planning and contrary to Marxian economics, doesn't require state involvement period. If everyone were to do this, the whole global economy would be better off. That this doesn't happen is due a complex confluence of social, political, and economic issues, not a capitalist conspiracy. Intangible also doesn't mean what you think it means, it's things that are invisible and hard to quantify, which is exactly what the byproducts of a booming hi-tech (cloth, at that time) sector would be. It's true that Ricardo's framework did not take that into account and it's true that negative byproducts of those decisions exist today. This is exactly what my own criticism of Ricardo's ideas is, that they're a good start but not sufficient for the contemporary world. All these facts do not excuse intellectual dishonesty in throwing out what he says wholesale. P.s. And If one wanted replace Ricardo wholesale, one would have to propose a better scaffolding that accounts for economic phenomena we see in the real world. Marxism ain't it.
- scottlocklin 6y ago
  >it's things that are invisible and hard to quantify We can dismiss Ricardo's moronic ideology looking strictly at tangibles: Portugal remained a primitive shit-hole with an underdeveloped economy at the barrel of a gun. Ricardo simply provided the justification. As I said, that kind of economics is simply ideology at the service of the ruling class, with linear regression. Or in Retardo's day; without linear regression. FWIIW Retardo's law doesn't work, by his own admission, where there is free flow of capital. It also doesn't work when you can't easily move resources to other ventures; something trivially obvious to all but the most fanatical of ideologues looking at, say, the industrial midwest of the US -Gary Indiana if you need a specific example. It also is a statement about national wealth, which means very little if all the benefits accrue to, say, 1-2 people (aka the Waltons or Oligarch Bezos, if you need specific examples). It also assumes technological development doesn't exist (otherwise you should invest in protectionism and technology to make your production more efficient; duh). Oh yeah, and mathematically the examples don't work with 3 of anything. Must be real easy not having to deal with any thinkers because you disagree with their politics. I wonder how you get away with using Reed-Solomon codes or Kolomogorov anything: invented by commies.

andrewjl 6y ago

Saying the Ricardo's theory is generally sound when taking into account intangibles is not gaping credulity. You seem to mistake that for unqualified support of what he wrote. You then deployed a quote by a scholar with an obvious axe to grind, confusing the discussion still further. All to distract from a banal, unalloyed statement that trade can be positive-sum and hey maybe we should think about how to encourage more of that, with Ricardo providing excellent scaffolding to build upon. To drill into the details further, Ricardo's combined idea of trade, specialization, and economies of scale does not mean that some countries must specialize in high-tech "good" industries and others must stick to commoditized, negative-externality-filled "bad" industries. His work didn't address that distinction at all, which is its limitation. Reading that into what he wrote is zero sum thinking. Countries can develop a basket of industries to specialize in, and if they plan carefully, can strategically do so to develop a stronger economy. It doesn't require state planning and contrary to Marxian economics, doesn't require state involvement period. If everyone were to do this, the whole global economy would be better off. That this doesn't happen is due a complex confluence of social, political, and economic issues, not a capitalist conspiracy. Intangible also doesn't mean what you think it means, it's things that are invisible and hard to quantify, which is exactly what the byproducts of a booming hi-tech (cloth, at that time) sector would be. It's true that Ricardo's framework did not take that into account and it's true that negative byproducts of those decisions exist today. This is exactly what my own criticism of Ricardo's ideas is, that they're a good start but not sufficient for the contemporary world. All these facts do not excuse intellectual dishonesty in throwing out what he says wholesale. P.s. And If one wanted replace Ricardo wholesale, one would have to propose a better scaffolding that accounts for economic phenomena we see in the real world. Marxism ain't it.

scottlocklin 6y ago
>it's things that are invisible and hard to quantify We can dismiss Ricardo's moronic ideology looking strictly at tangibles: Portugal remained a primitive shit-hole with an underdeveloped economy at the barrel of a gun. Ricardo simply provided the justification. As I said, that kind of economics is simply ideology at the service of the ruling class, with linear regression. Or in Retardo's day; without linear regression. FWIIW Retardo's law doesn't work, by his own admission, where there is free flow of capital. It also doesn't work when you can't easily move resources to other ventures; something trivially obvious to all but the most fanatical of ideologues looking at, say, the industrial midwest of the US -Gary Indiana if you need a specific example. It also is a statement about national wealth, which means very little if all the benefits accrue to, say, 1-2 people (aka the Waltons or Oligarch Bezos, if you need specific examples). It also assumes technological development doesn't exist (otherwise you should invest in protectionism and technology to make your production more efficient; duh). Oh yeah, and mathematically the examples don't work with 3 of anything. Must be real easy not having to deal with any thinkers because you disagree with their politics. I wonder how you get away with using Reed-Solomon codes or Kolomogorov anything: invented by commies.