Talk:Comparative advantage: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
imported>Nick Gardner m (The Heckscher-Ohlin model) |
imported>Martin Baldwin-Edwards |
||
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
:It doesn't seem right to mention the Hecksher-Ohlin model without noting that the United States (the world's most capital-intensive country) was since found to be exporting labour-intensive products and importing capital-intensive products. Since it seems to be generally accepted nowadays that factor endowments have no more than a minor influence upon trade patterns, is it worth mentioning Hecksher-Ohlin at all? [[User:Nick Gardner|Nick Gardner]] 10:34, 13 November 2007 (CST) | :It doesn't seem right to mention the Hecksher-Ohlin model without noting that the United States (the world's most capital-intensive country) was since found to be exporting labour-intensive products and importing capital-intensive products. Since it seems to be generally accepted nowadays that factor endowments have no more than a minor influence upon trade patterns, is it worth mentioning Hecksher-Ohlin at all? [[User:Nick Gardner|Nick Gardner]] 10:34, 13 November 2007 (CST) | ||
::I think we need to mention the H-O-S model as something which is now looking rather irrelevant or even wrong. This is because many courses still teach it, and people will ask why it is not discussed here...--[[User:Martin Baldwin-Edwards|Martin Baldwin-Edwards]] 11:29, 13 November 2007 (CST) | |||
Revision as of 12:29, 13 November 2007
The Heckscher-Ohlin model
- It doesn't seem right to mention the Hecksher-Ohlin model without noting that the United States (the world's most capital-intensive country) was since found to be exporting labour-intensive products and importing capital-intensive products. Since it seems to be generally accepted nowadays that factor endowments have no more than a minor influence upon trade patterns, is it worth mentioning Hecksher-Ohlin at all? Nick Gardner 10:34, 13 November 2007 (CST)
- I think we need to mention the H-O-S model as something which is now looking rather irrelevant or even wrong. This is because many courses still teach it, and people will ask why it is not discussed here...--Martin Baldwin-Edwards 11:29, 13 November 2007 (CST)