since north is more advanced they have means of utilizing labor units more efficiently than does south. therefore each labor unit is "worth" more in the north than in the south. it is therefore more important to free up units in the north than in the south.
You seem to be rather ignorant of the model presented. (And indeed, of economics in general.) Perhaps that's why you have the reputation that you do? They have not the means to seek out "more efficient" utilization of labor units in the context of the model that's been presented. If they did, then we can assume that the South would eventually have a similar ability. (Then again, your entire approach centers around ignorance of maximization of dynamic comparative advantage, so it's unsurprising that you would ignore such a basic element.) It's amusing; you apparently ascribe the ability to utilize labor units for purposes outside of corn production in one region but completely ignore the potential for similar capacities in the other. If you wish to open the model to that form of speculation, it would be nice if you were a bit more consistent.
who are you to make assumptions about how these freed up units will be used? why do you assume they will be used to produce gold toilet seats? maybe they will be used to produce breakthrough vaccines?
Who are
you to make assumptions about how those freed-up units will be used? You seem to have a love of inconsistency in ascribing developmental capacities to the North that you seem to believe the South will eternally lack.
your model proves the opposite of what you think it does. it proves that free trade is more efficient because it frees up resources where they can be most efficiently used.
freeing up resources in the south is pointless. all they can possibly do with the extra people is grow more corn ( that nobody needs ) because that's the only thing they're bright enough to do.
in fact it would probably be optimal to do the OPPOSITE of what your "fair" trade suggests. it would probably be optimal to make sure the ONLY people working are in the south. and all the people in the north are free to develop new vaccines, write music, send satellites into space etc.
because ultimately any progress made in the south is IRRELEVANT as they are merely playing catch up with the north. they are NOT advancing humanity as a whole NOT THE SLIGHTEST BIT. they should be employed 100% growing corn AND building machines while paying LICENSE FEES to the north in form of corn and anything else the north desires.
if north feels charitable they may be nice enough to allow some southern students into its universities.
The rest of your blathering is entirely pointless drivel that expounds on the fundamental inconsistency that you presented from the first portion of your post. You seem to enjoy ascribing developmental capacities to the North, but assume that there is no potential for any such capacities in the South. As I've continually mentioned, this is based on your ignorance of the benefits of dynamic comparative advantage maximization and the role that strategic trade policy by means of the protection of infant industries might play in eventually promoting those capacities, thus promoting long-run utility maximization.
Please; inundate us with more of your
thrilling insights!
Not only that, but Agna's assumption is wrong.
There is a reason why emerging countries that have instituted the correct policies grow faster than developed countries. Long-term economic growth is driven primarily by advances in technology, which lower cost curves and frees up resources for other uses. The countries that have been most successful are those that are able to capture technology transfer from the developed to the emerging world. As technologies become commoditized, they move to cheaper locales. To the cheaper locales, they represent a significant improvement to the human capital of the region, and the changes in marginal productivity of labor is higher in the emerging economies than it is in the developed economies since they start at a much lower point. This capture of technology transfer is the main reason (along with participation in global markets since their local markets are immature) why some emerging countries have been able to grow faster than developed nations.
Economic growth is a function of technological advancement. Growth is limited by the bounds of technological knowledge. Advanced economies grow by pushing out the bounds of technology. Emerging economies are far below the bounds of technological advancement. Their growth occurs by moving up to the bounds of the curve. Since they are further below the curve, technology transfer to the emerging market moves them closer to the curve and thus their economy grows at a faster rate.
This is based on a utopian conception of trade policy. Obviously, trade is not limited to "technology transfer," (although I can see why that would function as an attractive commodity for you to selectively describe), but with the intrusion of more established firms and industries with greater knowledge and information about various facets of production and market structure into developing countries. Hence, while quaint references to Ricardo and comparative advantage might have some role in the maximization of static comparative advantage, they will inevitably ignore dynamic comparative advantage and the greater long-term gains (as measured by various utility algorithms, perhaps), promoted by consideration of that latter element of trade.
The entire basis behind the infant industry argument, for instance, relies on the consideration of dynamic comparative advantage maximization that is so woefully neglected by the Washington Consensus and like-minded proponents of neoliberal expansion. The strategic use of interventionism to protect the stability and growth of infant industries is the entire basis behind the development of the current capitalist powers of the world that today disavow that approach for developing countries. As noted in Chang's
Kicking Away the Ladder:
Almost all of todayÂ’s rich countries used tariff protection and subsidies to develop their industries. Interestingly, Britain and the USA, the two countries that are supposed to have reached the summit of the world economy through their free-market, free-trade policy, are actually the ones that had most aggressively used protection and subsidies.
As to the remainder of your posts, I've decided to refrain from imitating you and adopting the good ole' copy and paste flood, which is why I've attempted to stay on topic. I shall endeavor to examine your posts and their selective incorporation of largely irrelevant data, of course, but it would be thrilling to all involved if you'd manage to fully respond to the criticisms of Dollar and Kraay instead of just claiming one single criticism rebutted by referring to a book that the rest of us don't have access to, and failing to expound on the specific elements of the "rebuttal."
