Monday, April 4, 2011

Comparative advantage once again: Ricardo, List and Krugman



In chapter 7 of his Principles of Political Economy and Taxation (1821), David Ricardo expounds his celebrated theory of comparative advantage in international trade. He creates a two-country model and calls the two countries England and Portugal. Furthermore the wares traded between the two countries are historically accurate: in Ricardo’s time England exported cloth to Portugal and imported wine therefrom, and these are the two wares traded in Ricardo’s model.

Ricardo’s theory of comparative advantage states that even if English cloth is dearer than Portuguese cloth, if Portugal can produce wine cheaply enough, Portugal will import English cloth, since Portugal would find it to its advantage to remove capital from the cloth industry and invest it in the wine industry.

So far so good.

Ricardo does not enquire into the historical operation of the factors that brought about this division of labour. This is not surprising, since Ricardo belonged to the Classical School, which was averse to most historical discussion and preferred to reason using static models in equilibrium.

Friedrich List belonged to the German Historical School. His method differed from Ricardo’s in that List was best described as an economic historian.

List tells the tale of Portugal’s textile industry in his work Das nationale System der Politischen Ökonomie (1841). List produces persuasive evidence that Portugal’s cloth industry flourished until it was undermined by the removal of the tariff that protected it from English cloth. Furthermore he shows that the English ambassador in Lisbon, Methuen, was instrumental in encouraging this reduction in tariffs.

Paul Krugman, in Ricardo’s difficult idea, accuses List of not understanding Ricardo’s comparative advantage theory. Nonetheless even if Krugman is right (and I suppose he is) this in no way detracts from List’s narrative.

List contradicts Ricardo, up to a point.

List’s tale seems to show that England’s trade advantage vis-à-vis Portugal was not comparative, but absolute. If England’s cloth had been dearer than Portugal’s, removal of the Portuguese tariff against English cloth would not have appreciably increased Portuguese cloth imports from England in the short term . Ricardo’s comparative advantage would operate only in the long term, as Portuguese capitalists discovered they could make larger profits by divesting from cloth manufacture and investing in vineyards. Portugal’s cloth production would then decline for lack of investment, and to make up for the missing cloth, Portugal would start importing English cloth.

Another matter altogether is whether the Portuguese economy in the  18th century provided channels for the transfer of productive capital from cloth-making to wine-making.

Sunday, February 13, 2011

Becoming a conservative isn't as easy as it looks!



A review of Richard Bernstein's Duped America.  

Gentle reader:

I am that ignoble creature, a flaming pinko, nothing but a wretched liberal socialist dweeb, but I have seen the light! I am now repentant for my Bolshy ways, and consequently I seek betterment from conservative sources. Thus, with firm tread I go to the CONSERVATISM GROUP in amazon.com. Perhaps here I will learn which are my grievous errors.
And I'm in luck!
Because a lady has just posted an all points bulletin asking which the best books are to persuade a liberal friend of hers that she has been hornswoggled and that the True Path is that of Conservatism!
And several people have suggested a number of books with promising titles.
Mah-velous! What a stroke of luck! Pretty soon I'll find out how all those snarling Lefties were misleading me all along.
I eventually spot a book that looks promising, called Duped America, by Richard Bernstein. I flip to a chapter about the Iraq war.
Ah, yes the WMDs. In letters of fire Bernstein admonishes us: “He lies who denies that chemical weapons were found in Iraq.” p 36 As a matter of fact a total of 53 “chemical weapons” was found. (He neglects to provide a description of these fiendish devices. Perhaps he does not want to alarm us with the prowess of Iraq’s military research!). On the other hand perhaps they were Molotov cocktails. And the author hurriedly adds “Perhaps there were thousands more that went uncounted, because the 53 were from only a small sample of the 10,000s of weapons caches in Iraq.”
Yeah, that makes sense, the US invaded Iraq under the motto “WMDs”, so after their easy victory, the Americans set about searching for the WMDs. But according to  Mr Bernstein, who is obviously very well informed, apparently they didn't search very hard.
These conservative facts are somewhat disconcerting. They appear to be part of a conservative theme park, a conservative  Wonderland perhaps.
At this point I ask the gentle reader: What is the likelihood -- after all the Bush régime’s ballyhoo about WMDs in Iraq – that the US failed to make a proper search for WMDs?
The answer is NONE! If all they found were 53 and they don't even tell us what kind of weapons they were, this man is obviously lying through his elbows.
Consequently we can calmly assume that for all practical purposes, no WMDs were found in Iraq. (Making a sound spot to make the Bush régime look good is NOT a practical purpose.)
Then it seem that Generalissimo Bush had the right idea after all!  According to Mr Bernstein, thanks to the Surge and our heroic fighting people, we won over the Sunnis and thus triumphed over Al Qaida and brought peace. 
I hate to be a spoilsport, but that narrative does not match what I have read by a noted academic Middle East specialist writing in a scholarly journal. I can look it up some other time. What really happened was that first, in 2003, Bush tried to cut the Sunni community [who had been the top dogs during the Saddam régime] out from power altogether. So he disbanded the army, the bureaucracy, etc. to undermine Sunni power. But the Sunnis fought back.
So Generalissimo Bush hit on a bold stratagem: Just surrender to the Sunni demands! And it worked like a charm!  Caving in to the demands of Saddam Hussein's lackeys was a brilliant tactical move on the part of Bush régime, prevented much bloodshed and preserved the US from the indignity of getting its butt kicked good and proper. The surge was not decisive.
Page 41: ”Democrats lied when they denied all links between AlQaida and Iraq.“
Richard Clark (a Democrat, by the way), in In Search of Enemies, states clearly with his rocket strike against the Shifa plant in Khartoum, President Clinton foiled military collaboration between al Qaida and Iraq in the manufacture of chemical weapons.
However that very same Dick Clark explains that that prior incident did not make it likely that cooperation had continued thereafter. 
In the opinion of US intelligence experts (i.e., Dick Clark) military collaboration had taken place in 1998. And furthermore in his opinion and everyone else’s, in the year 2001  that prior episode was completely irrelevant! So it was a good thing we didn't get an earful of the Al-Shifa escapade. It would have been a complete waste of time. 
I've only read a few pages of this book, and it's full of lies!  Demonstrable lies.
It seems my plan for salvation from the dread limbo of socio-progre-liberalism -- that is my bane – will be  more arduous than I thought. Maybe if I join the Aryan Nations …

Wednesday, December 29, 2010

Lyric Interlude > I am an American Conservative Shitheel.

http://enormousthrivingplants.blogspot.com/2009/08/i-am-american-conservative-shitheel.html

Tuesday, December 14, 2010

What do the Koran and the U.S. Constitution Have in Common?


¨ They both provide practical political instruction to large groups of fairly ignorant and feckless people, mainly in the form of establishing certain default expectations that are very powerful because they mold perception and experience, and provide practical labels that people use as a guide to reality.
¨ They are both regarded by their numerous devotees with the greatest awe as incomparable and unique, and their principal traits become ritualized and assume mythical proportions.
¨ Neither of them can be changed, although they adduce different pretexts for this peculiar common trait.
¨ They are both sacred relics from the time of our blessed ancestors who wrought no sin.
¨ Accordingly they are both completely outdated and should be discarded at the earliest opportunity in favor of something with more sex appeal.
¨ I mean, sheesh!
Rabbi Tech U. Pantzov provides  practical answers  for the despairing 


masses who must endure the anguish of contemporary  existence!

Sunday, December 12, 2010

THE UNBEARABLE SMUGNESS OF THE KLEPTOCRACY



FORMER REAGAN ADVISOR ANGRY BUSH 'BANKRUPTED AMERICA'

04/18/2007 @ 11:49 am
Filed by RAW STORY

Conservative economist Bruce Bartlett accused President Bush of "bankrupting" America and betraying the Reagan legacy in an interview on PBS's Tavis Smiley Show on Tuesday....

TAVIS SMILEY: Bruce Bartlett is a columnist who served as economic policy advisor to Ronald Reagan and later Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Treasury Department under the first President Bush. The most recent book is "Imposter: How George W. Bush bankrupted America and Betrayed the Reagan Legacy.
...
TAVIS SMILEY: Did George W. Bush do all of that?
...
BRUCE BARTLETT: Bankrupt America? Yes, I think that we have had something like a $20 trillion increase in the national debt under this president's watch and I think that one of these days, I don't know when, but one of these days, the chickens are going to come home to roost.
...
BRUCE BARTLETT: … it appears in retrospect this president didn't really have any clear economic plan. A lot of things were done in an ad hoc basis or based solely on political considerations without much thought as to how all the pieces fit together.
...
BRUCE BARTLETT: . Secondly, I think a lot of the tax cuts were not well designed to help with economic growth and were really just the tax equivalent of pork barrel spending, just special deals for special groups. And as a consequence I don't think we have really gotten the economic benefits of the tax cuts
...
BRUCE BARTLETT: As an economist, you look at tax cuts, different kinds of tax cuts they have different effects on the economy. Some have very positive effects, some have virtually no effect at all. Some might have negative effects. If you look at the whole menu of all the different kinds of tax cuts that this president enacted, only some of them were really very helpful to economic growth and a lot of the others were not. They were just revenue that was lost to no purpose of any kind whatsoever.
...
BRUCE BARTLETT: . This president doesn't care one whit about the fiscal situation, doesn't worry at all about deficits or debt.

Saturday, December 11, 2010

Global warming research for rank amateurs


Global warming research 
conducted applying revolutionary 
new seat-of-the-pants methodology



It's easy to be a global warming skeptic when you just want to sound tough. However businesses that have something to gain or lose by global warming are taking global warming very seriously indeed. Like insurance companies. And reinsurance companies. No scoffers at Munich Re. Read the article in Slate. 

As usual, the political right is ignoring objective reality in order to support the profits of a handful of multinational corporations.

True, the ten commandments contain vital messages for today’s youth, like: “No graven images!” and “Keep the Sabbath holy!” Don't know what I would do without them commandments, no siree.

But on the other hand, saying that the thermometer is relentlessly rising, a proven scientific fact that no amount of right-wing propaganda can refute, THAT is not important. That is “junk science”. Glaciers are melting? A fluke!

So many Gates! This-Gate and That-Gate and the Other-Gate. So I decided to conduct an enquiry into global warming while avoiding any risk of data manipulation, such as that perpetrated by those horrid English scientists. (I'm still not sure what they are supposed to have done wrong.)  

In a rapture of brilliance, I resolved to cut the Gordian knot by asking dozens of shopkeepers and farmers in a single town in Central America if it was now warmer than, colder than, or the same temperature as ten years ago. Without exception they all said it is now considerably warmer than ten years ago. 

So I reported the results of my global warming research on a global warming skeptics' web site.

But, you guessed it: my methodology didn't cut the mustard either. The global warming skeptics were shocked, shocked! Shopkeepers! Farmers! Heaven forfend! Absolutely unacceptable!

You can’t win. Specifically, no matter what data you provide to prove global warming, it's never enough. I wonder why. 

YOU CAN'T BEAT THE SHYTSEM