> Bertil Ohlin's theory (as applied to the United States over the past
> twenty-five years) that changes in patterns of international trade are the
> principal cause of shifts in the distribution of income is a perfectly good
> neoclassical theory that has been refuted to the satisfaction of most (if
> not all) neo-classical economists.
>
> In fact, the entire neoclassical Heckscher-Ohlin approach to international
> trade--that trade is the result of differences in relative factor
> endowments--is in very big trouble and has been in very big trouble for two
> decades (in large part because of Paul Krugman).
>
> Brad DeLong
Two decades ago was 1978. But HOS went down with the capital critique, as specifically demonstrated by...Steedman (and Steedman and Metcalfe). What did Krugman demonstrate that wasn't already demonstrated by Kaldor (except Kaldor did it better)? And why is the neoclassical version of 'Ricardian' comparative advantage (not Ricardo at all) still a mainstay of the econ curriculum, from principles through international trade?
Mat