"F. George McDuffee" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 11 Mar 2008 13:06:03 -0400, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:
snip
There was no "world market" when prices and wages were established by
market
forces in the US. What happened is that the "world market" grew up, around
pittance wages and trivial embedded costs, fueled by the free movement of
capital and the rapid transfer of technology.
snip
===========
Indeed, and be reminded that the Recardo grift of "comparative
advantage" posited that capital, including intellectual capital
[i.e. technology] is "fixed" within a country. As soon as
capital is free to relocate, "comparative advantage" disappears
leaving only "absolute advantage." The continued assumption (or
at least propagandizing] of "comparative advantage" with mobile
capital appears to account for the large number of problematic,
economic crisis [and paupers] being generated.

That the economic trade theory under which we're operating is an underlying
problem, I agree. I think most of the propagandizing about "comparative
advantage" is being done by people who misunderstand the term, or who think
that the people they're talking to misunderstand it.

In any case, it remains, AFAIC, a joke that is a profound theory on paper,
but which I don't believe has ever worked in practice. I can't imagine how
it could unless consumers said to themselves, "I could buy an identical TV
made in my own country for less, but I'll buy this more expensive one from
France because it will help my country's overall trade volume." Huh?

Have you ever heard of a case where it works?

--
Ed Huntress