IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/osf/osfxxx/uwdbk_v1.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

The Astonishing Conclusion of the Attribution Debate on the Law of Comparative Advantage

Author

Listed:
  • Morales Meoqui, Jorge

Abstract

The law of comparative advantage should not be attributed to anyone. This astonishing conclusion to the longstanding attribution debate on the law of comparative advantage comes from the recent demystification of David Ricardo’s famous numerical example in chapter 7 of the Principles. It debunked the conventional narrative that his “four magic numbers” were the first proof of this law by showing that Ricardo chose them according to a different rule for specialization. Likewise, as this article shows, there is no hint of the law of comparative advantage in the writings of John Stuart Mill, James Mill and Robert Torrens. The belief in the existence of this alleged law grew out of the confusion created by J. S. Mill’s misreading of the purpose, content and implications of Ricardo’s numerical example. In truth, the law of comparative advantage is nothing more than a mythological construct, so no one deserves credit for it.

Suggested Citation

  • Morales Meoqui, Jorge, 2021. "The Astonishing Conclusion of the Attribution Debate on the Law of Comparative Advantage," OSF Preprints uwdbk_v1, Center for Open Science.
    • Handle: RePEc:osf:osfxxx:uwdbk_v1
    DOI: 10.31219/osf.io/uwdbk_v1
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://osf.io/download/5fef1f67e9ccb9036caee4e3/
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.31219/osf.io/uwdbk_v1?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:osf:osfxxx:uwdbk_v1. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: OSF (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://osf.io/preprints/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.