[...]we came across a cool site that you might enjoy. Take a look if you are looking for a way to clean your blog from spam links.[...]……

You leave out many variables when it comes to trade. The idea that free trade benefits a country because of comparative advantage is for basic countries that run free economies like the US. However, countries like Brazil who use centralized economic strategies through state owned enterprises do not compete at the same rate as US free enterprises. As such lets take your example of cars and computers. It is actually cheaper to produce both cars and computers in Brazil. As they have the cheaper labor, cheaper resources and cheaper production facilities. You like most economists who do not follow Marshallian theory do not properly place all variables into the equation and go on some mixed equation of false idea that Smithian without Marshallian theories actually works when dealing with countries of high Marxists theories. Let me explain:
Your idea of comparative advantage does not take away high paying jobs or create unemployment is easily rebutted by a Smithian Marshallian Economic Reality principle non professional economists. As such, enough theory rebuttal on to the good stuff.
Lets take our trade with China as that is my study of specialty. We started trading freely with a heavy Marxist theorized country in false idea of free trade will not take jobs, or create high unemployment. However, what we have seen since Marshallian principles where not properly etiquette to Smithian ideas when dealing with Marxists; we notice that the US began to rely on a service bell curve for employment and negative capital inflows. As such this reliance has caused and fulled huge amounts of inflation (lost savings) and lost jobs during each recession. As such every time the service bell curve crashes via the employment multiplier which I plan to prove in my MA economics program, the Marxists who protect their economy heavily are able to take more jobs and market shares from the US. While then driving down quality of life via unemployment from the reliance on the high service bell curve. Then they are able to come in and buy up market shares and hire US citizens for cheaper prices than they were making during the up trend of the service bell curve. As such, we have gained unemployment and we have lost jobs. Along with that I will leave you to this. The idea of trading with the Communists was that the US would have a comparative advantage in high tech trade. We have been in a high tech trade for 4 years now. This is primarily due to variables of production that allow the Communist to buy cheaper resources, and keep their prices down while each recession they are able to gain more jobs in a surplus which causes their overhead to go down, while it costs the US overhead in those same industries to go up. Much like a $50,000 a year starting engineer job going for $8,000 a year in China.
Your theory is wrong and very upsetting for a Marshallian economists how properly etiquette Marshallian theory to Lockean theory to understand Marxist one world economic domination theory, and how it works via unfair competition. Along with that this idea of unregulated free trad, completely demonizes the idea of anti-trust and cartel activities in the law. As it makes it seem like we can trade with anyone who has a comparative advantage and we will also gain a comparative advantage. I would like to see you tell that to the communist who have slowly over 30 years gained a comparative advantage in all industries including cars in which our leaders and really bad economic theorists when it comes to Marshallian and Smithian free trade reports said would not happen or it was good.
Your wrong please stop thinking and reporting your wrong ideas of economics. You and your ideas and ideas like you have caused a massive reliance on a service bell curve, which possible might be leading us into a Soviet Style economic implosion around 2014. Lets hope I am wrong.
My suggestion is that you either report that this is in a vacuum or you realize that certain theories completely destroy free trade like Communism.
http://rideriantieconomicwarfare.blogspot.com/

Boy oh boy, where do I start…

Your comment shows that you either have not read the article or do not understand it at all. You have misled yourself with your examples – they are full of logical inconsistencies. Comparative advantage does not say who gets paid what, only that both countries will have more stuff WITH trade than without trade. So forget the whole “CA is wrong because wages differ” – economists since Ricardo have been well aware of that.

The most absurd part of your comment is when you say that personal income has been stagnant for the past 40 years. This is simply not true! In the US, annual per capita money income has gone up from below 15,000 in 1968 to almost 27,000 $ in 2008 – AFTER correcting for inflation. [Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Current Population Survey]

Economics is difficult and it relies on math and formal logic. That makes it difficult for laymen to comprehend. The example in the text is a numerical example, but that is so ordinary people will understand the bare bones of the law. If you still don’t understand it, I suggest that you reread it. Comparative Advantage is not “hypothetical”, “hocus-pocus” or any other of your crude accusations. And finally: Just because a theory is old, that does not mean that it is not true. If it was so, I would look forward to read your scathing criticism of Newtonian physics…

Let’s hear your theory!

CA has been around (and in practical use) forever. If you have a better idea, please share it.