What is the comparative advantage that results in every microwave sold to be made by Midea? Or that every semiconductor is made on a machine made by ASML? And what do these have to do with free trade?
Not "free" in many respects. But still subject in the past to comparative advantage. World trade is, in many cases, played out under monopoly conditions in many countries. But in emerging trade regimes this may be more difficult to sustain, leading to greater disruption, and maybe positive competition. The reality is that global corporations are playing their own games (interests) and national governments may be less able to enforce (their view our view?) of order. An order that will still tend toward monopoly conditions. This is a truly a new frontier and it may be a new wild west.
We can say there's a comparative advantage but how do we get away with leaving it at just that statement. I'm sure there's an advantage for CEOs and elite investors, but what about for the product itself? Is it political? Do they have more water to use? Do they have more places to dispose of manufacturing waste? Do they have all the resources they need in Taiwan? They use the same exact machines. What is their comparative advantage?
"Comparative advantage" is an econ term that means only a net maximum in goods produced, meaning that total wealth increases. As always the way the wealth is distributed is not to the advantage of many. What is interesting about so many "theories" of economics is the assumption that it is all about increase, not about equity.
The semiconductor chip industry in Taiwan was never about free trade or comparative advantage or anything else Ricardo might have informed us about. It was about the movers and shakers making money, top down government planning and intervention, subsidies, and destroying US labor.
What is the comparative advantage that results in every microwave sold to be made by Midea? Or that every semiconductor is made on a machine made by ASML? And what do these have to do with free trade?
Not "free" in many respects. But still subject in the past to comparative advantage. World trade is, in many cases, played out under monopoly conditions in many countries. But in emerging trade regimes this may be more difficult to sustain, leading to greater disruption, and maybe positive competition. The reality is that global corporations are playing their own games (interests) and national governments may be less able to enforce (their view our view?) of order. An order that will still tend toward monopoly conditions. This is a truly a new frontier and it may be a new wild west.
We can say there's a comparative advantage but how do we get away with leaving it at just that statement. I'm sure there's an advantage for CEOs and elite investors, but what about for the product itself? Is it political? Do they have more water to use? Do they have more places to dispose of manufacturing waste? Do they have all the resources they need in Taiwan? They use the same exact machines. What is their comparative advantage?
"Comparative advantage" is an econ term that means only a net maximum in goods produced, meaning that total wealth increases. As always the way the wealth is distributed is not to the advantage of many. What is interesting about so many "theories" of economics is the assumption that it is all about increase, not about equity.
The semiconductor chip industry in Taiwan was never about free trade or comparative advantage or anything else Ricardo might have informed us about. It was about the movers and shakers making money, top down government planning and intervention, subsidies, and destroying US labor.