Timeline for What are Reinert's reproaches to the Ricardo theory?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
8 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sep 25, 2015 at 7:35 | comment | added | Jyotirmoy Bhattacharya | @SergeiAkbarov Without demand and supply there is no Ricardian model at all, so I don't think that the comparison you are asking for makes sense. Many popular presentations of the model mix things up, so I would request you to please take a look at at least the first few sections of the first paper without any prior conceptions and see if it answers your questions. | |
| Sep 25, 2015 at 7:14 | comment | added | Sergei Akbarov | I think this means that you don't understand what I am speaking about: "I would say the problem is solved qualitatively in the sense that even in the general case in the sense that comparative advantage (measured by relative productivities) remains the determinant of the pattern of trade and the source of the gains from trade." My question is if it is still possible that introducing demand and supply (you can imagine that they are removed and after that introduced again) just changes the quantitative answer from 0 to a little $\varepsilon>0$. | |
| Sep 25, 2015 at 6:59 | comment | added | Jyotirmoy Bhattacharya | @SergeiAkbarov Google Scholar would have copies of the other two papers, but the essential economics is all there in the first. First, supply and demand are not new parameters. Even the 2×2 model requires them since without knowing the supply of labor and the demand for the goods the pattern of specialization cannot be determined. Second, I would say the problem is solved qualitatively in the sense that even in the general case it is comparative advantage (measured by relative productivities) that determines the pattern of trade and is the source of the gains from trade. | |
| Sep 25, 2015 at 6:52 | comment | added | Sergei Akbarov | It will take me some time for finding the last two papers in the library, but this already sounds as if you were trying to answer another question, not the one I was asking. You say "with no logical problems", but my current question is: "In which sense these corrections solve the problems? One can imagine that introducing new parameters, supply and demand, solves the logical paradoxes (i.e. removes the uncertainity in the decisions), and changes the quantitative picture, but does not solve the problems qualitatively." Could you comment this? | |
| Sep 25, 2015 at 6:51 | comment | added | Jyotirmoy Bhattacharya | @DavidRoberts Indeed. There is no long-run trend to unemployment, so if you are trying to understand phenomena say on the scale of decades you could just look at the average level of unemployment, subtract it from the labour force and then assume that the remaining labor is fully employed. To have the imagination to abstract away from those aspects of reality not relevant to a particular problem, and then to validate the abstractions against evidence, is what economists are paid for. To see things just as they are requires no special training. | |
| Sep 25, 2015 at 6:00 | comment | added | David Roberts♦ | "In a Ricardian world there is no unemployment by assumption" and this is what we pay economists for?? | |
| Sep 25, 2015 at 5:18 | history | edited | Jyotirmoy Bhattacharya | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 740 characters in body
|
| Sep 25, 2015 at 5:05 | history | answered | Jyotirmoy Bhattacharya | CC BY-SA 3.0 |