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

Jorge Morales Meoqui

No uwdbk_v1, OSF Preprints from Center for Open Science

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.

Date: 2021-01-01
References: View references in EconPapers View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations:

Downloads: (external link)
https://osf.io/download/5fef1f67e9ccb9036caee4e3/

Related works:
Working Paper: The Astonishing Conclusion of the Attribution Debate on the Law of Comparative Advantage (2021)
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:osf:osfxxx:uwdbk_v1

DOI: 10.31219/osf.io/uwdbk_v1

Access Statistics for this paper

More papers in OSF Preprints from Center for Open Science
Bibliographic data for series maintained by OSF ().