4 ms·
Alt text: "You legs may have a comparative advantage at running, but we arms have a competitive advantage at swinging hammers, so unless you accept that we're t
by dvh 1mo ago
Alt text: "You legs may have a comparative advantage at running, but we arms have a competitive advantage at swinging hammers, so unless you accept that we're the dominant limbs and stop hogging the oxygen, that running advantage won't be around for long."
- smallmancontrov 1mo agoRicardo's comparative advantage result is contingent on the assumption that capital is not mobile across borders. This was a good assumption in 1817. Is it a good assumption today? Furthermore, he's very up front about this in On the Principles, and from this information you can calculate the exact number of people who read the damn thing between the person repeating the talking point and the person originating the talking point.
- nkmnz 1mo agoIn 1817, capital did not cross borders. Borders crossed capital.
- inquirerGeneral 1mo ago[dead]
- tim333 1mo agoI don't know it makes much difference. People could walk from country to country in Europe back then and still can, likewise you could move money and equipment and still can.
- smallmancontrov 1mo agoThe limiting factor on deploying capital abroad was never the ability to move gold or even equipment, it was the ability to have faith that over many years the remote authorities would continue to enforce your remotely held claims on the operation.
- nkmnz 1mo agoBut that's been true for your locally held claims as well, and even more so in modern times with tax rates hovering around 50% in many European countries. It's just that they take their cut every single month, instead of doing so at will.
- harperlee 1mo agoArguably studying derivative works, such as a volume on economics, would be sufficiently acceptable as to void your calculation…
- javanissen 1mo agoIt doesn’t really matter what Ricardo said in 1817: every US academic economist surveyed in 2018 by the Kent Clark Center disagreed that US aluminum and steel tariffs would increase the welfare of the American people ([0]), and this is with the benefit of >200 years in advances in economic scholarship and analysis since Ricardo. [0] https://kentclarkcenter.org/surveys/steel-and-aluminum-tariffs/ https://kentclarkcenter.org/surveys/steel-and-aluminum-tarif...
- smallmancontrov 1mo agoThe fact that the dumbest president in American history is bad at industrial policy does not mean that industrial policy cannot or should not be done.
- toomuchtodo 1mo agoThe fact that he has two and a half years left in office, along with Congress not willing to do anything, means industrial policy cannot be done. We can certainly try again when something changes, whether that’s the required turnover in Congressional representation (maybe midterms, maybe two more years from now) or federal administration regime change (January 2029). “We are at an impasse.” Until then, the country keeps burning down, as voted for by the electorate. I do not see another path, but perhaps I am mistaken. I am always open to being corrected when wrong.
- tancop 1mo agoGood industrial policy is made from positive economic actions. State investment, interest free loans for factory expansion, strong antitrust law, subsidies and tax reforms that promote industry growth instead of shielding it from competition. Tariffs can be a good way to pay for this but they are always negative for consumers, and most of the time also net negative for domestic industry. Hard quotas and trade bans put up a wall that completely removes buyer choice and turns everything into a corrupt seller's market. The American tradition is using negative tools because of their anti competitive effects. Car makers really don't want people buying cheaper cars from overseas so they lobbied for the chicken tax. In a country where funding from corporate super PACs is the most reliable way to win elections no president will change policy if it means losing a big sponsor.
- deleted 1mo ago[deleted]