Well, yes. Ricardo didn’t consider that over time economies evolve and “what we produce best” changes. The emerging American economy is not rooted in industrial production, but rather in symbolic analysis. Where we were once the leading producers of steel and automobiles, we are now the chief exporter of information services, design solutions, entertainment and multimedia, among others.

The real problem with your assertion that we are a “street bum beggin for handouts” is based on the (flawed) premise that industrial production is an accurate measure of wealth.

I will gladly concede that using foreign investment to prop up a trade deficit is a flawed long-term strategy, but I don’t think we’re quite so doomed as the numbers might first appear.

The real flaw is not in the economic principles upon which free trade is based, but within our cultural focus on industrial production. As a society, we must commit to rebuilding our educational system and infrastructure so that future generations of workers will not be dependant upon a 19th century production model for income.

Your assertion that comparative advantage is overly simplistic is brash as well without being able to show some rational flaw. It is simple because it is true; demonstrably so. Making claims to the contrary by invoking population density as a looming variable overlooks the very simple fact that comparative advantage is true at the micro level of application, between individuals. At the macroscopic level, you aren’t witnessing direct, predictable application of simple principles, but systems of emergent complexity. These systems are only generally predictable, as our understanding is predicated on the understanding of those variables which we can track, analyze, and model.

So, while we’re recommending literature, I might suggest stepping outside of the realm of classical economics and into the realm of complex theory. I might also recommend some Adam Smith simply for the “the division of labour is limited by the extent of the market…” type stuff.

Paul Jenkins

Being overly kind to McTeer, to suggest that our trade balance has had a positive impact on GDP is disingenuous at best. In the calculation of GDP, exports are added while imports are subtracted. So a trade deficit always has a negative impact on GDP regardless of exports, and we’ve had a trade deficit since 1975.

Our enormous trade deficit is rightly of growing concern to Americans. Since leading the global drive toward trade liberalization by signing the Global Agreement on Tariffs and Trade in 1947, America has been transformed from the weathiest nation on earth – its preeminent industrial power – into a skid row bum, literally begging the rest of the world for cash to keep us afloat. It’s a disgusting spectacle. Our cumulative trade deficit since 1976, financed by a sell-off of American assets, exceeds $9 trillion. What will happen when those assets are depleted? Today’s recession may be just a preview of what’s to come.

Why? The American work force is the most productive on earth. Our product quality, though it may have fallen short at one time, is now on a par with the Japanese. Our workers have labored tirelessly to improve our competitiveness. Yet our deficit continues to grow. Our median wages and net worth have declined for decades. Our debt has soared.

Clearly, there is something amiss with “free trade.” The concept of free trade is rooted in Ricardo’s principle of comparative advantage. In 1817 Ricardo hypothesized that every nation benefits when it trades what it makes best for products made best by other nations. On the surface, it seems to make sense. But is it possible that this theory is flawed in some way? Is there something that Ricardo didn’t consider?

At this point, I should introduce myself. I am author of a book titled “Five Short Blasts: A New Economic Theory Exposes The Fatal Flaw in Globalization and Its Consequences for America.” My theory is that, as population density rises beyond some optimum level, per capita consumption begins to decline. This occurs because, as people are forced to crowd together and conserve space, it becomes ever more impractical to own many products. Falling per capita consumption, in the face of rising productivity (per capita output, which always rises), inevitably yields rising unemployment and poverty.

This theory has huge ramifications for U.S. policy toward population management (especially immigration policy) and trade. The implications for population policy may be obvious, but why trade? It’s because these effects of an excessive population density – rising unemployment and poverty – are actually imported when we attempt to engage in free trade in manufactured goods with a nation that is much more densely populated. Our economies combine. The work of manufacturing is spread evenly across the combined labor force. But, while the more densely populated nation gets free access to a healthy market, all we get in return is access to a market emaciated by over-crowding and low per capita consumption. The result is an automatic, irreversible trade deficit and loss of jobs, tantamount to economic suicide.

One need look no further than the U.S.’s trade data for proof of this effect. Using 2006 data, an in-depth analysis reveals that, of our top twenty per capita trade deficits in manufactured goods (the trade deficit divided by the population of the country in question), eighteen are with nations much more densely populated than our own. Even more revealing, if the nations of the world are divided equally around the median population density, the U.S. had a trade surplus in manufactured goods of $17 billion with the half of nations below the median population density. With the half above the median, we had a $480 billion deficit!

Our trade deficit with China is getting all of the attention these days. But, when expressed in per capita terms, our deficit with China in manufactured goods is rather unremarkable – nineteenth on the list. Our per capita deficit with other nations such as Japan, Germany, Mexico, Korea and others (all much more densely populated than the U.S.) is worse. My point is not that our deficit with China isn’t a problem, but rather that it’s exactly what we should have expected when we suddenly applied a trade policy that was a proven failure around the world to a country with one fifth of the world’s population.

Ricardo’s principle of comparative advantage is overly simplistic and flawed because it does not take into consideration this population density effect and what happens when two nations grossly disparate in population density attempt to trade freely in manufactured goods. While free trade in natural resources and free trade in manufactured goods between nations of roughly equal population density is indeed beneficial, just as Ricardo predicts, it’s a sure-fire loser when attempting to trade freely in manufactured goods with a nation with an excessive population density.

If you‘re interested in learning more about this important new economic theory, then I invite you to visit my web site at OpenWindowPublishingCo.com where you can read the preface, join in the blog discussion and, of course, buy the book if you like. (It’s also available at Amazon.com.)

Please forgive me for the somewhat spammish nature of the previous paragraph, but I don’t know how else to inject this new theory into the debate about trade without drawing attention to the book that explains the theory.

Pete Murphy
Author, “Five Short Blasts”