177
submitted 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) by SexUnderSocialism@hexbear.net to c/news@hexbear.net

xi-button

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] homhom9000@hexbear.net 12 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

Opportunity cost to justify comparative advantage is dumb, not Opportunity cost in general.

Edit: "Moving my banana slicing factory to Thailand and picking the bananas in Brazil to sell to Canada has a better comparative advantage than slicing the bananas while they're in Brazil" like that

[-] FunkyStuff@hexbear.net 6 points 10 months ago

Yeah you're right because in that case it's not really a difference in the marginal costs that motivates the spreading out of the supply chain (on the contrary, having to transport the goods around adds a lot of overhead) but the colonialist need to keep each place from being self-sufficient.

However, you shouldn't throw out the baby with the bath water. Marxist economists still consider comparative advantage because means of production aren't equal in each country. From Chapter 10 of Towards a New Socialism (from 1993 so this comparison is outdated):

The German clothing industry can probably produce garments with less labor than the Chinese clothes industry. The German car industry can certainly produce cars with less labor than would be needed if they were made by backstreet workshops in Shanghai. In both cases Germany has a productivity advantage over China, but it is nonetheless economical to export Mercedes to China and to import cotton goods to Germany. This arises because of the greater relative productivity of the German car industry. Compared with hand assembly, the highly automated car factories of Mercedes may give, say, a five-fold improvement in productivity; with the rag trade the scope for improvements in productivity is not so dramatic. Although a German clothing firm might be more efficient, the advantage would not be so great as for the car industry. It thus pays Germany to concentrate its labor force in those engineering industries where it has the greatest advantage.

Of course, Cockshott goes on to develop a theory of how this structure actually works when the ratio of demand for the various commodities inevitably doesn't match the productive capacity of both economies. The point is, though, that even if we did away with exploitation we'd still have a situation where it makes more sense to do certain kinds of production in one economy due to unequal means of production that lead to comparative advantage.

also obligatory Cockshott is a TERF disclaimer

[-] homhom9000@hexbear.net 2 points 10 months ago

I don't disagree that there can be a benefit, thanks for the source, but in Keynesian economics comparative advantage is mostly used to justify colonial power over smaller nation states. Local industries are undercut for profit, once the "profitable" production is moved elsewhere(assuming they have the means) nations states are saddled with whatever was decided to be profitable for them to produce instead. It pigeon holes nation states into capitalist set industries that are mostly only advantageous for profit/productivity. What happens if the means of production is given the opportunity to equalize? At the same time, we all don't have to produce the same thing either.

I can't remember where I was reading this, I think in Palo Alto, but there was discussion about before colonialism many countries were known for certain things. Like India and textiles or China and pottery, Rugs in west Asia, but as countries were thrusted into global economics and with technological advancments, these profitable industries became no more, devastating economies. In it's place, is what's advantageous,most profitable, and productive to the ownership class.

Naturally this is already in place and we can't go back, nor would it be advantageous to, but we shouldn't rebuild colonialism for productivity.

this post was submitted on 09 Apr 2025
177 points (99.4% liked)

news

24588 readers
603 users here now

Welcome to c/news! We aim to foster a book-club type environment for discussion and critical analysis of the news. Our policy objectives are:

We ask community members to appreciate the uncertainty inherent in critical analysis of current events, the need to constantly learn, and take part in the community with humility. None of us are the One True Leftist, not even you, the reader.

Newcomm and Newsmega Rules:

The Hexbear Code of Conduct and Terms of Service apply here.

  1. Link titles: Please use informative link titles. Overly editorialized titles, particularly if they link to opinion pieces, may get your post removed.

  2. Content warnings: Posts on the newscomm and top-level replies on the newsmega should use content warnings appropriately. Please be thoughtful about wording and triggers when describing awful things in post titles.

  3. Fake news: No fake news posts ever, including April 1st. Deliberate fake news posting is a bannable offense. If you mistakenly post fake news the mod team may ask you to delete/modify the post or we may delete it ourselves.

  4. Link sources: All posts must include a link to their source. Screenshots are fine IF you include the link in the post body. If you are citing a Twitter post as news, please include the Xcancel.com (or another Nitter instance) or at least strip out identifier information from the twitter link. There is also a Firefox extension that can redirect Twitter links to a Nitter instance, such as Libredirect or archive them as you would any other reactionary source.

  5. Archive sites: We highly encourage use of non-paywalled archive sites (i.e. archive.is, web.archive.org, ghostarchive.org) so that links are widely accessible to the community and so that reactionary sources don’t derive data/ad revenue from Hexbear users. If you see a link without an archive link, please archive it yourself and add it to the thread, ask the OP to fix it, or report to mods. Including text of articles in threads is welcome.

  6. Low effort material: Avoid memes/jokes/shitposts in newscomm posts and top-level replies to the newsmega. This kind of content is OK in post replies and in newsmega sub-threads. We encourage the community to balance their contribution of low effort material with effort posts, links to real news/analysis, and meaningful engagement with material posted in the community.

  7. American politics: Discussion and effort posts on the (potential) material impacts of American electoral politics is welcome, but the never-ending circus of American Politics© Brought to You by Mountain Dew™ is not welcome. This refers to polling, pundit reactions, electoral horse races, rumors of who might run, etc.

  8. Electoralism: Please try to avoid struggle sessions about the value of voting/taking part in the electoral system in the West. c/electoralism is right over there.

  9. AI Slop: Don't post AI generated content. Posts about AI race/chip wars/data centers are fine.

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS