Talk:Ricardian economics

Untitled

Hi everyone, it looks as if an image has been deleted or has never been inserted on line "When looking at the graph above, point A is where ...". I hope this is no copy&paste!? Paul Rubio --84.189.35.211 08:06, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, and how heavily the article relies upon Henderson's article from "The Fortune Encyclopedia of Economics" (as opposed to Peach or some other serious scholar) is incredibly worrying... —Pqnelson (talk) 02:12, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Ricardian economics. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20050917065532/http://wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn to http://wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:11, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Intermediate?

I see this article is listed as "intermediate" level in importance. The famous economist Sum Buddy Orother once said of the Law of Comparative Advantage that it "is the only part of classical economics that is not intuitively obvious to the intelligent common man." That understates the case. It is counter-intuitive because it says not that you must be better at something to specialize in it, you must be either more better or less worse than your counter-parties. Even Grammarly gives this notion two red lines, objecting to the double comparatives.

With Donnie and his ignorant friends in command in Washington, this has all come to the fore, so it's important. First rank important.

I see that Hecksher-Olin and a number of associated articles are so far only stubs, so I shall try to put in some time on them (and learn the Wiki ropes) over the next year. Back in 1979~82, I was Moderator, i.e. censor or at least noise-suppressant, of Sci.talk.econ on the Usenet feed of the old Fidonet, so there are something like six to twenty-thousand professional economists out there, though dying fast, that was a generation ago, who know my name at least. I'll try to get some of the better minds involved.

I'll also try to get in touch with other people who have been working around these topics: I will value your advice, tolerate your criticism :-) , and appreciate your teaching.

David Lloyd-Jones (talk) 13:26, 3 April 2018 (UTC)