Timeline for What are Reinert's reproaches to the Ricardo theory?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
30 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Apr 13, 2017 at 12:51 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
replaced http://economics.stackexchange.com/ with https://economics.stackexchange.com/
|
|
| Jul 1, 2016 at 11:52 | comment | added | Sergei Akbarov | @StevenLandsburg, I deleted my last two comments. In my opinion, you replace analysis with poetic comparisons. There is a difference between profit in real life and what theory sometimes prescribes as profit, the question is about this. To moderators: if you happen to decide to remove this question, I ask you to move it to math.stackexchange. But I hope, this will not happen, since the mathematical component of it is understandable. | |
| Oct 1, 2015 at 3:01 | review | Close votes | |||
| Oct 1, 2015 at 16:56 | |||||
| Sep 26, 2015 at 22:57 | comment | added | Steven Landsburg | And finally: The theory of comparative advantage is a collection of theorems. This is the first time I've heard of migration, poverty and joblessness attributed to a theorem. Do you also want to atribute the general problem of scarcity to the theorem that says the real numbers are linearly ordered? | |
| Sep 26, 2015 at 22:55 | comment | added | Steven Landsburg | As to your "main question", "What are Reinert's reproaches to the Ricardian theory?", didn't you just finish telling us that you'd just read his book? Imagine this question: "I've just finished reading Little Women. What was it about?" Would that be on-topic? | |
| Sep 26, 2015 at 22:51 | comment | added | Steven Landsburg | Your conclusion that "country A must abandon the production of $G_1$ and $G_2$" has no actual content. (What does "must" mean?). What you seem to be mean, based on the earlier part of the post, is that all three countries will be richer if country A abandons all production. This is, of course, absurd on its face, but we don't have to worry about that because you've given no argument for it. So your question comes down to "I wrote down some numbers and I wrote down a ridiculous conclusion with no argument. Where's my error?". I do not think this counts as a math question. | |
| Sep 26, 2015 at 20:17 | history | edited | Sergei Akbarov | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
edited body
|
| Sep 26, 2015 at 20:09 | history | edited | Sergei Akbarov | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 40 characters in body
|
| Sep 26, 2015 at 14:19 | comment | added | Steven Landsburg | Example #1 in your current edit (with the 'conclusion' that Country A should produce nothing) embodies the sort of misunderstanding that could be cleared up in an instant by consulting any standard undergraduate textbook on trade theory, and certainly would have been cleared up if you'd consulted the specific literature you were pointed to in earlier answers to this question, or if you'd read Will Sawin's answer. This is beginning to seem a lot like those questions on MSE that start from the "observation" that .99... is not equal to 1, except that this one has less to do with mathematics. | |
| Sep 26, 2015 at 6:21 | history | edited | Sergei Akbarov | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
deleted 5 characters in body
|
| Sep 26, 2015 at 6:13 | history | edited | Sergei Akbarov | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
deleted 4 characters in body
|
| Sep 26, 2015 at 6:07 | history | edited | Sergei Akbarov | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
I rewrote everything to remove inaccuracies
|
| Sep 25, 2015 at 19:21 | comment | added | Sergei Akbarov | @JyotirmoyBhattacharya, I wrote already that this was not my interpretation. And, perhaps, you did not understand, this is not a homework. However, I agree that the picture is not nice, I'll think how to edit the text. | |
| Sep 25, 2015 at 5:39 | review | Close votes | |||
| Sep 25, 2015 at 12:19 | |||||
| Sep 25, 2015 at 5:05 | answer | added | Jyotirmoy Bhattacharya | timeline score: 3 | |
| Sep 21, 2015 at 7:01 | review | Close votes | |||
| Sep 21, 2015 at 14:16 | |||||
| Sep 18, 2015 at 7:20 | history | edited | Sergei Akbarov | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 2 characters in body
|
| Sep 17, 2015 at 15:12 | comment | added | Sergei Akbarov | @PeterLeFanuLumsdaine, if there is no problem here, and everything is written in textbooks, you can answer the last questions in my Edit. | |
| Sep 17, 2015 at 15:04 | comment | added | Peter LeFanu Lumsdaine | This is a very well-written and interesting question, so I’m not voting to close, but it is hardly research-level mathematics. As the excellent answers show, there are well-established models for answering this question (most obviously: supply and demand commodity pricing), which is found in many basic textbooks. There is no “paradox”; the only real issue is that Ricardian comparative advantage, in itself, is a very incomplete model. | |
| Sep 17, 2015 at 15:03 | history | edited | Sergei Akbarov | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 17 characters in body
|
| Sep 17, 2015 at 14:46 | history | edited | Sergei Akbarov | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 1 character in body
|
| Sep 17, 2015 at 8:45 | history | edited | Sergei Akbarov | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
deleted 1 character in body
|
| Sep 17, 2015 at 8:33 | history | edited | Sergei Akbarov | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 1942 characters in body
|
| Sep 16, 2015 at 22:41 | answer | added | Michael Greinecker | timeline score: 7 | |
| Sep 16, 2015 at 15:57 | answer | added | Will Sawin | timeline score: 15 | |
| Sep 16, 2015 at 15:27 | answer | added | Steven Landsburg | timeline score: 10 | |
| Sep 16, 2015 at 14:38 | history | edited | Sergei Akbarov | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
edited title
|
| Sep 16, 2015 at 14:32 | comment | added | joro | IMHO this is complicated by the fact that currencies/exchanges trade virtual stuff, e.g. market expectations. | |
| Sep 16, 2015 at 14:24 | history | edited | Sergei Akbarov | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 4 characters in body
|
| Sep 16, 2015 at 14:17 | history | asked | Sergei Akbarov | CC BY-SA 3.0 |