Dear Jorge,

I read your paper: Comparative advantage and the labor theory of value. I agree with you for most of your arguments but I have some comments and an objection.

(1) Ruffin's "new" interpretation

It is true that many economists misread the Ricardo's text (Chapter 7 of the Principles). But we cannot say that Ruffin's interpretation is new. I do not talk about Sraffa's 1930 paper. His comment was too brief to be understood that two completely different readings was concerned. It was Kenzo Yukizawa who presented in 1974 a new interpretation (in his expression "original/authentic interpretation" 原型理解) based on a detailed text analysis. He compared it with "deformed interpretation" and concluded that his interpretation was the only possible reading of the chapter 7. I added a rather long note on this "new" reading.

(2) Maneschi and Meoqui on constant labor cost assumption

You emphasize that Chapter 7 is not based on this assumption. You write: "I could not find in chapter seven of the Principles -- or somewhere else in this book -- any explicit or implicit reference to constant labor cost in connection with international trade." (p.11) You may be right in this contention. But can you deny that Ricardo had not assumed "constant labor cost" assumption in Chapter 1 when he discussed value (internal value theory)?

I am a firm Sraffian but not a fundamental one. I think constant coefficient assumption is much better than decreasing returns to scale. As Sraffa clarified in his 1925 and 1926 papers, decreasing returns are required only because it was theoretically necessary for the Marshallian framework. Increasing returns to scale are more realistic, as you indicate. But this assumption is normally excluded form the neoclassical framework (say, for example Arrow-Debreu, 1953). Some attempts were made in order to include increasing returns to scale in a general equilibrium framework. Krugman succeeded in his intra-industrial trade theory in introducing increasing returns to scale but his theory is constructed on a highly symmetric assumption on the production processes of firms. We have argued that constant coefficient model has some reality in a subsection of our paper (pp.202-203). If necessary, we can treat increasing returns to scale by assuming that the production process requires fixed installations and machines together with input materials and parts. This is what Krugman had employed in his analysis.

(3) Ricardo problem on international value

This is the most important point of my comments.

You emphasize that Ricardo denied labor theory of value. It is undisputable that Ricardo thought that "the law of value for domestic transactions -- and therefore his labor theory of value -- does not hold for international exchanges."(your expression, p.7) In Ricardo's expression, it is asserted that "the same rule which regulates the relative value of commodities in one country, does not regulate the relative value of the commodities exchanged between two or more countries."(Sraffa, 1951, p.133)

What is necessary, then? Most people will ask like this: If the rule that regulates the relative value of commodities in one country ("internal theory of value" for brevity) is no more valid in international trade, what will be the rule (or principles or a theory) which regulates the relative value of the commodities exchanged internationally. How could Ricardo construct these new principles ("international theory of value" for brevity)? Family answer is that he could not. This was the answer of John S. Mill and many others.

This was also the understanding of K. Marx. For example, he put it like this:

But the law of value in its international application is yet more modified by this, that on the world-market the more productive national labour reckons also as the more intense, so long as the more productive nation is not compelled by competition to lower the selling price of its commodities to the level of their value. (Capital Vol.1 Part VI, Chapter 22, Section 3.)

Your interpretation is a surprise to me. You think a new theory is already present in the Principles. Of course, there are some comments and paragraphs which are related to this question, but it is far from complete. Ricardo simply assumed a system of international values but he could not produce a rule how this relative value is determined. In other words, he could not present a theory of international value, which is comparable to the internal theory of value.

If you claim Ricardo did, you should explain it.

Dear Yoshinori,

Thank you very much for your interesting comments. I’m happy to read that we agree on most issues. I would like to add the following to your comments:

1) I was not aware of Kenzo Yukizawa’s contribution. I’m very interested in reading his paper and your note about it. Is it also available in English?

2) Actually I have not found a single reference to the constant labor cost assumption in the Principles, so I welcome any specific quote from Chapter 1 or any other chapter you might have.

3) I would say that Ricardo ruled out the validity of the labor theory of value in international transactions as long as the external mobility of the factors of production was not equivalent to the internal mobility. If they were equivalent, then the labor theory of value would also regulate the relative value of commodities in international trade (Vol. 1, p. 136).


Under this interpretation there is no need for a theory of international value which is comparable to the internal theory of value. All that is needed is a monetary rule that takes its place in the meantime until the differences between internal and external mobility disappear. 
I do believe that Ricardo formulated this rule right after his famous numerical example when he wrote that “cloth cannot be imported into Portugal, unless it sell there for more gold than it cost in the country from which it was imported; and wine cannot be imported into England, unless it will sell for more there than it cost in Portugal” (Vol. 1, p. 137). He also refers to it in chapter 28 of the Principles, “On the Comparative Value of Gold, Corn and Labour in Rich and Poor Countries,” when he (Vol. 1, p. 375) states that “the natural price [the money cost of production] of commodities in the exporting country … ultimately regulates the prices at which they shall be sold … in the importing country.”

Jorge,

for these days, too many duties perchasing me. Let me answer the only the first of three.

Unfortunately, there is no English translation. I think it deserves to be translated. For the moment, I cannot take the charge of traslating it. I hope someone do that.

Dear Yoshinori,

In case you might have more time in the coming weeks, I have attached a link to the Open Peer Discussion forum of another paper. I'm having there an interesting discussion with Professor Giancarlo de Vivo about the accurate interpretation of David Ricardo's comparative-advantage statement.

http://etdiscussion.worldeconomicsassociation.org/?post=nature-and-merits-of-ricardos-statement-of-comparative-advantage

Jorge,

I have downloaded your paper and the Professor Giancarlo de Vivo's comment but in a week or so I will not have the time to read them.

I want to add a remark on the second topic of our discussion.

Jorge claims that Ricardo never assumed constant labour cost assumption in his Principles. You claim Ricardo simply assumed a fixed amount of production when he connects value of a commodity to the quantity of labour necessary to produce it. But, in reality, I think Ricardo considered a various amount of productions and he freely changed the amount of production according to the context of his explanation.

Ricardo analyzes "always such commodities only as can be increased in quantity by the exertion of human industry,” and the state of “the production of which competition operates without restraint." (Chap. 1. Paragraph 17; Sraffa, p.12) This is the very presumption he assumes for all his analysis of value. This assumption is of course kept in Chapter 7.

In Chapter 1, Ricardo assumes free competition among producers (or capitalists) and observes that the manufacturing "has a strong tendency to equalize the rate of profits of all" (Chap. 4, Paragraph 4; Sraffa, p.88). He reaffirms this in Chapter 7, by saying "[i]n one and the same country, profits are, generally speaking, always on the same level; or differ only as the employment of capital may be more or less secure and agreeable." (Chap. 7, Paragraph 5; Sraffa, p.134)

In Chapter 1, Ricardo does not refer to the difference of rate of profits among producers. The expression "quantity of labour necessary to" (their production/obtain/produce [5 times]/manufacture) appears 8 times in Chapter 1. There are no indications on differences of productivities between producers. He assumes they are equal in a normal or general state of the economy (probably after the competition has enforced those less competitive producers to quit from the industry).

If the productivity changes for each producers, he should talk about "rent" (or quasi-rent) of producers who have better method of production by employing better machine or by adopting a better labor organization or others. He never talks about these points. When Ricardo comes to agriculture and mining, he talks explicitly on rents. He emphasizes that the value of a commodity "is regulated by the quantity of labour bestowed on its production on that quality of land, or with that portion of capital, which pays no rent." If Ricardo is thinking the differences of productivity in manufacture, he must have mentioned on this and the existence of resulting quasi-rents.

If we consider the structure of his theoretical deployment, it is necessary to consider that Ricardo assumed constant labor cost at a given time and a country. More precisely, he assumed (1) producers compete freely, (2) many producers operate practically with the same productivity, (3) producers have practically an equal rate of profits, and (4) the quantity of labor of necessary to produce a predetermined amount of commodity is the same for all (for all producers and for any amount of production in a country).

In this situation, we are permitted to talk constant returns to scale and we have the reason to use the concepts labor input coefficients when we want to interpret what Ricardo wanted to say in a more modern form.

Yoshinori,

Thanks for answering the second point. If I have understood you correctly, you haven’t found so far any explicit use of the constant-labor-costs assumption in Ricardo's writings either. You are rather inferring this assumption by what Ricardo wrote about the relative value of commodities, right?

But in chapter 1 of the Principles, which deals with this topic, one can find the following statement:

"An alteration in the permanent rate of profits, to any great amount, is the effect of causes which do not operate but in the course of years; whereas alterations in the quantity of labour necessary to produce commodities, are of daily occurrence. Every improvement in machinery, in tools, in buildings, in raising the raw material, saves labour, and enables us to produce the commodity to which the improvement is applied with more facility, and consequently its value alters. In estimating, then, the causes of the variations in the value of commodities, although it would be wrong wholly to omit the consideration of the effect produced by a rise or fall of labour, it would be equally incorrect to attach much importance to it; and consequently, in the subsequent part of this work, though I shall occasionally refer to this cause of variation, I shall consider all the great variations which take place in the relative value of commodities to be produced by the greater or less quantity of labour which may be required from time to time to produce them." (Ricardo, Vol. 1, pp. 36-37)

In the above quote Ricardo affirms that the alterations in the quantity of labor necessary to produce commodities occur on a daily basis. It is therefore not accurate to suppose that Ricardo assumed constant labor costs in this context. In fact, Ricardo's assumption is the complete opposite to constant labor costs.

I cannot follow the logic of your argument for assuming constant returns to scale in Ricardo. Furthermore, I don’t know why you have come to believe that I am claiming that Ricardo assumed a fix amount of production. I am not aware that I have ever claimed this and I don't believe that Ricardo assumed this either. Perhaps you can help me clarify these points.

Dear Jorge,

Let me first cite the text about "The Constant-Labour-Costs Assumption" you have written in your paper "Comparative advantage and the labor theory of value":

The constant-labor-costs assumption has been rightfully regarded as the most unrealistic feature of the Ricardian model of contemporary textbooks. It is indeed an unreasonable assumption for any kind of trade model, since the greatest benefit of trading commodities and services consists in the encouragement of specialization and mass production, which necessarily lead to gains in labor productivity, increasing returns to scale and decreasing labor costs per unit. These beneficial effects could be largely increased by engaging in commerce at an international scale because of the greater extension of the market. Therefore, it is perfectly understandable that any economist who builds up his case in favor of international free trade on a theoretic trade model that leaves precisely these benefits out will inevitably fail to convince anybody.

(p. 11 in your Discussion Paper)

Argument on "increasing returns to scale" (and Buchanan and other) has no relevance to the present question, that of interpretation of Ricardo's text.

"Constant labor cost" concept and "returns to scale" concept, if it is increasing, constant or decreasing, did not exist at the time of Ricardo. So, even if Ricardo did not use these terminologies, it does no prove that Ricardo did not assumed constant returns to scale. Real question lies in what kind of situation Ricardo assumed implicitly when he uses an expression like "quantity of labour bestowed on the production of any object"(paragraph 12) and others.

For example, Ricardo starts his chapter 1 by this statement:

The value of a commodity, or the quantity of any other commodity for which it will exchange, depends on the relative quantity of labour which is necessary for its production...

(paragraph 1)

How is the relative quantity of labor measured?

He adds (as I have cited in my previous post)

the greatest part of those goods which are the objects of desire, are procured by labour; and they may be multiplied, not in one country alone, but in many, almost without any assignable limit, if we are disposed to bestow the labour necessary to obtain them.

(paragraph 6)

Ricardo is thinking that the quantity of produced commodity can be changed (by his word "multiplied"). Do you think the quantity which is necessary to produce this amount of the commodity is produced by some amount of labor, whereas another amount of the same commodity is produced by another amount of labor which is very different than that is proportional to the first production?

If we think of four assumptions Ricardo made (enumerated in my earlier post), it is quite difficult that Ricardo did not assumed constant returns to scale. By this expression, I simply mean when a unit of a commodity is produced by means of labor of λ units, then it is assumed that two units of the commodity can be produced by means of 2λ units of labor. More generally, I suppose it is assumed that when x remains within a suitable range, x units of the commodity can be produced by means of x λ units of labor.

If these are not assumed, how you can explain that a unit of the commodity is exchange with another commodity which is produced by means of λ units of labor, whereas actually in the economy 10 units of the second commodity are produced employing 10λ units of labor.

One may cite another text, this time that of Adam Smith, which Ricardo cite approvingly.

If among a nation of hunters, for example, it usually cost twice the labour to kill a beaver which it does to kill a deer, one beaver should naturally exchange for, or be worth two deer. It is natural that what is usually the produce of two days', or two hours' labour, should be worth double of what is usually the produce of one day's, or one hour's labour."

(paragraph 9)

It is much easier to guess how Smith was thinking. He was thinking that in the hunting of any games, there is an average time to destroy a kind of them. I think he is suggesting this by the word "usually". In a hunting economy, the labor time which is actually consumed must vary from game to game. But he is thinking of an average amount of labor. This average makes sense in the hunting economy. If the actually consumed time was three time the average, the dear hunter cannot demand three times of beavers as he can get from his exchange partner.

(This interpretation can be enforced when we read Book 1 Chapter 7 of Wealth of Nations.)

This kind of re-interpretation is necessary even for Ricardo's text. For example, consider the next paragraph.

If the quantity of labour realized in commodities, regulate their exchangeable value, every increase of the quantity of labour must augment the value of that commodity on which it is exercised, as every diminution must lower it.

(paragraph 11)

Here, Ricardo uses the word "realized". If this expression means the amount of labour actually consumed in the production of a commodity, this rule implies that when your labor productivity is low, your product is sold dearer. Ricardo is not thinking this kind of absurdity.

Ricardo did not clarified that he is assuming the that average quantity of labor necessary to produce any thing remains constant (or practically constant) while he is speaking of constant value. I suppose this is assumed without saying.

It is important to note that Ricardo is assuming a constant value for commodities for the first part (paragraphs 1 to 13) of Section 1 of Chapter 1 (where Ricardo establishes the "foundation of exchangeable value of all things", paragraph 10). If not there is no meaning to talk the exchange value, for every time you want to make any barter it may change and you do not even know what the suitable value of exchange is.

The text you are citing from pp.36-37 does not apply to this statement. Here Ricardo is talking variation in value of commodities.

Dear Yoshinori,

Regarding my quote, this is exactly what I think about the constant-labor-costs assumption: it is a completely unrealistic and unfitting assumption for a trade model.

You are right in pointing out that the terms “return to scale” and “constant labor costs” did not exist in Ricardo’s time. This undisputed fact, though, has not prevented many scholars from writing that Ricardo assumed constant unitary labor costs or constant return to scale in his numerical demonstration of the comparative-advantage proposition. Since nobody has been able to find any explicit statement of these assumptions in Ricardo's writings, many are saying that he rather assumed this implicitly. Therefore, I have not merely search for these terms, but also for traces of any implicit statement of these assumptions in Ricardo’s writings, with the same negative results.

Of course Ricardo thought that the amounts of labor time necessary for producing a certain amount of a commodity varies, sometimes even daily. It is actually these variations in the relative value of commodities which Ricardo is trying to explain with his labor theory of value.

The apparent absurdity of the labor theory of value which you are mentioning was already addressed by Karl Marx in Das Kapital. I am sure you are familiar with his statement that it is the socially necessary labor time which regulates the relative value of commodities, not the individual productivity. In a competitive setting, if a producer is lacier or less productive than another, of course the former will not command a higher value for the commodities produced. On the contrary, the less productive producer will obtain less profit from the sale of his commodities compared to his more efficient competitors, and thus will be forced to either increase his productivity or abandon the current economic activity.

With regard to the alleged "need for constant value for establishing the foundation of exchangeable value of all things", it is important to realise that the operation of the law of value is independent from the recognition of its existence by the trading partners. In some cases people exchange a certain quantity of a commodity for another out of habit or – even more often – because they simple compare the respective prices of the commodities. They very rarely compare the respective labor times and if they do so, they generally do not care how much labor time the other trading partner has invested in the production of these commodities. The law of value regulates the relative value of commodities in the background.

One can only arrive to the assumption of constant labor costs from the following analysis: if we observe that the value of a commodity has remained constant over a period of time, than we can assume under the labor theory of value that the labor time required for its production has also remained constant during the very same period. The frequent fluctuations in the relative value of commodities are actually the empirical evidence that the labor-time requirements do not remain constant.

Finally, I would like to comment on your four assumptions, using the same numbers:

(1) Ricardo did not assume that producers compete freely in every branch. What he actually said was that his labor theory of value only regulates the relative value of those commodities which are subject to competition and its quantity can be increased almost indefinitely by labor. “In speaking then of commodities, of their exchangeable value, and of the laws which regulate their relative prices, we mean always such commodities only as can be increased in quantity by the exertion of human industry, and on the production of which competition operates without restraint.” (Ricardo, Vol. 1, p.12)

So, no labor theory of value for a painting of da Vinci or an original Apple I computer from 1976. “Their value, as Ricardo (ibid.) points out, is wholly independent of the quantity of labour originally necessary to produce them, and varies with the varying wealth and inclinations of those who are desirous to possess them.”

(2) Ricardo believed that sooner or later competition would crushed those producers with low productivity. Therefore, we might disregard individual differences in productivity.

(3) In a competitive setting, there is a tendency for an equalisation of profit rates within a country. Therefore, “in one and the same country, profits are, generally speaking, always on the same level; or differ only as the employment of capital may be more or less secure and agreeable. It is not so between different countries (Ricardo, Vol. 1, p. 134).” From this statement I would not conclude that Ricardo assumed that every producer has the same profit rate.

(4) Consequently, Ricardo treated the quantity of labor necessary to produce a predetermined amount of a commodity as if it were the same for all producers, but he definitely did not believe that it would remain constant from one period to another nor for every level of production.

Dear Yoshinori,

I have recently revised and submitted the attached paper. It deals with some of the topics we have discussed in this place. Dropping the constant labor costs assumption leads to a significant reevaluation of the influence of Smith's insights in Ricardo's international trade and a strengthening of the case for free trade.

Article Reconciling Ricardo’s Comparative Advantage with Smith’s Pro...

Jorge,

You may be on to something with the idea that "labor theory of value" was not as strongly embedded in the original version of comparative advantage as it is now taught in undergraduate trade classes. Nevertheless, a one factor, constant-returns production function does render the model more tractable for undergraduate students as a first introduction. In practice, what Ricardo seems to describe may be more similar to what is now called a "specific factors model", that is, if I am reading your papers and the work of Maneschi (2008, SEJ) correctly.

I suppose a follow-up question would be, "what insight on comparative advantage would students gain from a more 'realistic' (or, accurate?) exposition of Ricardo's model as presented by Ricardo himself?"

Dear James,

Thanks for your answer and for taking the time to read my papers. I actually believe that the Ricardian trade model is particularly harmful for undergraduate students. It would be better to start the introduction with Smith's insights about the importance of the division of labor for increasing labor productivity, followed by an explanation of the classical rule of specialisation. Only then it would be suitable to explain Ricardo's numerical example (always the original, not the misinterpretation), because only at this point they would have acquired the necessary prior knowledge to understand it properly. Don't you think so?

Jorge,

I think this depends on what you are trying to convey to students by teaching the Ricardian model. The (over)simplified version presented in most textbooks is good at illustrating two things:

1. the basis for trade according to comparative advantage (as opposed to the notion of absolute advantage found in Smith);

2. explaining the international distribution of income on the basis of differences in productivity (and the notion that trade may not narrow these gaps.

If you are using the simple model of comparative advantage to make grand claims about the welfare gains from trade then you are probably over-selling the model to your students. Also, if you want to introduce some of the distributional issues of trade in the (simplified) Ricardian framework (that which is presented in the textbooks), all you need to do is change the assumption of perfect intersectoral mobility to one of perfect intersectoral IMMOBILITY. That will bring out the two important impacts of trade internally, which are:

1. National net gains;

2. Distributional winners and losers.

Whether you want to call the basic model of comparative advantage presented in most textbooks "Ricardian" is a matter of semantics (not to mention the fact that a version of the "Ricardian" model can be traced back to Plato and Aristotle). For my money, continuing to call it a "Ricardian" model is simpler than calling it "A Labor Theory of Value Constant Returns Model of Comparative Advantage." All in good fun.

Cheers,

Jim

Jim,

Finding a proper denomination wouldn't be a big problem, I guess. One could call it for example the Constant Unitary Labor Costs model. It has even a nice sounding acronym: CULC model :-)

Or simply the neoclassical model of comparative advantage, which would reveal its true origin.

One of the main problems I see in the continued use of the textbook model is that it conveys a wrong idea of what costs should be compared. According to Smith, Ricardo, James Mill, Torrens and others, the relevant cost comparison for the specialization of individuals as well as countries is the internal one, as specified by the classical rule of specialization. Ricardo did not propose another rule of specialization in his famous numerical example, but used the same rule as Smith and others.

Furthermore, Ricardo’s original numerical example does not rely on any of the unrealistic assumptions usually associated with the textbook trade model. And the gains from trade are quite easy to calculate.

I’m currently rewriting a paper which highlights the main differences between the two, and would like to send it to you when the revision is finished in case you are interested in reading it.

Cheers,

Jorge

The Ricardian statment is not so simple as textbook assume. In fact, dynamics are very complex and, the jump from autarky to free trade is not defined. Then, the Ricardian statiment is a true statment that textbooks cannnot easily explain by means of graphs and static equations.

Dear Alexandra,

Thanks for your answer. I am not aware of the relationship between autarky and Ricardo's original numerical example. Perhaps you can help me clarify this point.

Yes, look at the article " Welfare Dynamics of the Ricardo-Mill Model", which analyzes the dynamics of Ricandian-Mill Model, taking into account that ricardian statment are not equal to textbooks formulation. Then, textbooks formulation are very simple, but mathematically incosistent. This question is very importat. Is absolutelly true that trade improves international welfare, but not at a short run and maybe never.

Dear Alexandra,

I have taken a brief look at the recommended paper. My first impression is that the featured trade model has very little if anything in common with what Ricardo actually wrote in the Principles.

Yes and not. The paper back to the orginal model and try to make the following exercice: the Ricandian statment is an result, not the procedure to achieve an economy with trade. The statment establishes the fondations of trade but does not says how calculate the comparative advantage.. The actually Principe is illustrated by means of an example thar comparate 2 goods. Of course we can comparate 2 thisgs. But, problems arises when we need comparate more than 2 goods. Then, the compative price is not done, since there are an unknown process that leads economies from any point (with no-trade or partial free trade ) to free trade. And, Ricardo's Principle says: 1) the full/free trade economies exists; 2) In the full/free trade point welfare increases in both economies; 3) the trade improve the economic efficiency worldwide. But, the statment never explained how move from any point with no trade or partial trade to free/full trade economy. This point is the question that textbooks try to do in an apparently easy way. But is not correctly done, because the explanations in textbooks are inconsistents. Is not easy to beleave that all textbooks give an incorrect tratment of the question, but there are an elegant argument in Dixit and Norman (1980) that put it cear.

Dear Alexandra,

I would recommend you to reexamine the Principles in the light of the correct interpretation of Ricardo’s numerical example. You will eventually discover that Ricardo’s statement was not meant to establish any foundation for trade, nor to explain how to move from a state of autarky to free trade. These issues were brought up as a result of a misunderstanding regarding the purpose and essence of the famous numerical example. On the other hand, Ricardo does offer a rather simple way to calculate the gains from trade.

Furthermore, you don’t need to compare more than two goods for proving the two propositions that Ricardo actually wanted to illustrate with his numerical example.

Dear Choi,

As you know, I have read your papers. It seems to me that your criticism of Ricardo is based on an inaccurate interpretation of the purpose and content of his famous numerical example. Before trying to prove somebody wrong, one has to put a great deal of effort in trying to understand what this author has actually written.

Here is a link to the published paper. All suggestions are welcome!

Article Ricardo’s Numerical Example Versus Ricardian Trade Model: A ...

 Re: Jorge Morales Meoqui's recent paper (cited above)

Ricardo's numerical example is simple, but the theory of international trade is not an easy one. Meoqui has succeeded in beatifully deconstructing the established ideas around the comparative advantage theory. This is a necessary work and a great contribution to the trade theory, but he presented no hints for the construction of a general theory.

We are in the age of globalized economy. We have to consider and analyze how global value chains are developing and will develop. HOS, HOV, New trade, and New new trade theories cannot treat this conspicuous phenomenon because they all exclude, by assumption, trade of input goods. However, a new theory is obtained recently. Readers who are interested in the new theory, please read my paper below. This paper was published in a book on line a few days ago.

The New Theory of International Values: An Overview

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/304717720_New_Theory_of_International_Values_A_General_Introduction

Working Paper The New Theory of International Values: An Overview

Thank you for your kind comment, Prof. Shiozawa. I am very pleased that you appreciate my effort. 

Frankly speaking, mainstream international trade theory is in such a poor shape, that I find it impossible to formulate a general theory of international trade before carefully deconstructing the most conspicuous errors and misinterpretations of the currently predominant neoclassical trade theory.

I will read your paper and come back to you soon. 

Best, 

Jorge

Working Paper Overcoming Absolute and Comparative Advantage: A Reappraisal...

According to the above paper, comparative advantage should not be taught at all. It suggests a complete reset of the mainstream interpretation of Ricardo's famous numerical example.