>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 shi

>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.