What A 19th-Century Economist Can Teach Us About Today's Trade Wars
The original painting is by Thomas Phillips.
Bettmann Archive
In a competitive marketplace, businesses need to know their advantage over others. Is it lower prices? A differentiated product? A service that targets a particular type of customer? This is the theory of competitive advantage. To win in business, developing and using that competitive advantage is critical.
While this notion works in the world of business, commerce between nations has been built on the concept of comparative advantage. First set out by the English economist David Ricardo in the 19th century, comparative advantage demonstrates that even if one country is better at producing all goods than another, they both still benefit from trade. Ricardo's textbook example shows a simplified world economy consisting of two countries (England and Portugal) producing wine and cloth. In Ricardo's example, Portugal could produce both more efficiently than England could. However, Portugal was superior to England at producing wine, so it made sense for England to produce cloth and trade it for Portuguese wine. If each country focused on producing the good for which it had a comparative advantage, then overall production of both wine and cloth would go up, leaving both countries better off as a result.
The critical difference between competitive advantage and comparative advantage is this: competitive advantage increases wealth (wins) by outperforming others; comparative advantage increases wealth (wins) by working with others. One is a zero-sum game; the other offers the chance for both parties to prosper.
Ricardo's new ideas came at the ideal time in world history. Mercantilism had been the predominant economic model of the prior two centuries, advocating for trade surpluses with all nations. The fallout from the Napoleonic Wars had turned the geopolitical landscape of Europe upside down. And the Industrial Revolution was rapidly reshaping national economies.
More recently, comparative advantage has had a real-world impact over the course of the last century.
In the current discourse on trade and tariffs, competitive and comparative advantages are being confused. Countries are not the same as companies – international trade is not a zero-sum game.
It is important, of course, for one's own country to increase wealth. Greater wealth provides opportunities for economic mobility. Economic mobility provides hope for the future. Countries that build comparative advantage in critical growth industries – for example, artificial intelligence, robotics, medical innovations, and services for aging populations – provide that hope and will succeed over the long term. The countries that invest considerable capital in R&D, scientific and engineering talent, and ecosystems that support entrepreneurialism will maintain their comparative advantage, even if other countries also benefit.
For companies, competitive advantage can manifest in the form of a price war, driving profits down for all parties. At the end of the day, one of those businesses may be the 'winner' – having put most of their competitors out of business. They may have won, but they only won because the others lost – all parties have weakened their businesses and their future prospects. When a disruption or new entrant comes along, the 'winning' business is unlikely to stay a winner for long.
Countries can do the same with a trade war, like the one taking shape today. While other countries may lose out, when trade and wealth decline across the board – comparative advantage in reverse – we have a 'lose-lose' outcome. Each country still has to make the goods it needs, but they are less efficient at making them because of a new lack of supply. That diverts resources from building for the future and lessens the chance that the next generation will be better off than the last.
It should go without saying that short-term gain for long-term pain is not a good strategy. Good long-term capital strategies for countries to follow are investments in scientific research, education, critical infrastructure, and building effective savings and investment systems for retirement and education needs.
Two hundred years ago, David Ricardo put forth the idea that trade can be a win-win for countries of varying skills and specializations. It's critical that we do not forget that lesson now. Global trade in goods, services, and capital can increase wealth for all – done right, it is a win-win, not a compromise.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
CNET
39 minutes ago
- CNET
Refurbished Tech Is Always an Option for You, and It Could Be a 'Joyful' One, Too
I've been writing about the right-to-repair movement and finding more sustainable ways to buy tech for years, but it wasn't until earlier this year on a routine Tube journey across London that I heard of Back Market, a refurbished tech marketplace originating in France. While avoiding any possible eye contact with strangers, as is good Tube etiquette, my gaze drifted up to a Back Market advert above the window pane. "Sorry, cats. Tech now has multiple lives too," it said. It was amusing and immediately made me want to know more. It turned out that I was late to the party, and this was just one of many cheeky ads that Back Market has run on the London Underground network and beyond. The aim of the company's campaigns is to normalize buying refurbished tech by making it fun, Back Market's CEO Thibaud Hug de Larauze said at SXSW London on Tuesday. Back Market projects a slogan onto the Apple Store in London. Back Market "Don't make people feel guilty, like you're a bad person because you're buying new," he said. "It's not going to work. It's not going to change people's behavior." Extending the lifespan of our phones, laptops and other tech products, whether through repair, responsible trade-ins that prioritize recycling or buying refurbished devices is critical to ensure we're not wasting precious minerals and exerting pressure on the natural world in ways that contribute to the climate crisis. It's serious stuff, but Back Market's lighthearted approach is about sparking "a joyful revolution" in the world of refurbished tech, said Hug de Larauze. Buying into this revolution is good for the planet, and for protecting the wellbeing of the people in developing countries whose health is impacted by mining for minerals or recovering them from discarded e-waste. It's also good for another reason – avoiding price rises on new tech sparked by tariffs. The repair and refurbish movement Back Market isn't the only marketplace willing to pay for your old tech and to sell you a refurbished device, but it's one part of a more widespread movement for change. Earlier this year, the company partnered with iFixit, which is equipping people around the world with the tools they need to repair their own tech while advocating for right-to-repair legislation. "We want to enable people to repair by default, if they want and if they can," said Hug de Larauze. "If they cannot, let's trade in easily and adopt a refurbished one." Together the companies are encouraging people to increase the time they hold onto their phones to five years, rather than the current average of two and a half years. They're also applying pressure to phone manufacturers to increase software support to 10 years. But Hug de Larauze has an even bigger request for tech companies, which he describes as "the next fight we need to push for." At the point when tech manufacturers cease to provide ongoing support for devices, he wants them to unleash the hardware they've made so that it can be fully divorced from the operating system. The idea is that an old iPhone, for example, could get a new lease on life as something like a baby monitor or security camera if combined with different software. This feels like a big ask for tech companies, with the main argument against the proposal likely to center around security concerns. Still, the world of refurbished tech is changing quickly. Over a million refurbished devices were purchased through Back Market last year alone and according to Hug de Larauze, there are already signs that people are holding onto their smartphones for longer and trading in more often. "For me, it's about building a global ecosystem of service for everybody to basically access to repair by default," he said. "Obviously, keep the device longer, but if for some reason you cannot, then easily trade it in and access refurbished devices instead."
Gizmodo
44 minutes ago
- Gizmodo
Cillian Murphy's Role in the '28 Years Later' Trilogy Is Coming Later Than We Hoped
Director and writer Danny Boyle teased the Oscar winner will appear to set up a third movie, if the first two do well. Cillian Murphy is set to make his eventual return to the world of 28 Days Later within the upcoming trilogy that 28 Years Later will kick off this summer, but there are a few catches. Director Danny Boyle (Trainspotting) revealed vague details about the Oscar-winning Oppenheimer actor's involvement to IGN. The upcoming trilogy expands on the world Boyle and Alex Garland (Civil War) started with 28 Days Later and its star Cillian Murphy, with a new set of interconnected stories. However, Murphy will not appear in the first film as it introduces a new central character: Spike, a 12-year-old boy portrayed by Alfie Williams whose family (led by Jodie Comer and Aaron Taylor-Johnson) finds itself in the thick of the post-apocalyptic zombie outbreak. 'Although each story completes itself, there's a handover section to the next film as well. So it's very ambitious. We haven't got the money for the third one yet. It will depend how the first one does, I guess,' Boyle shared and explained that Murphy's return is contingent on how the first two movies do. 'But hopefully if we do ok, they'll give us the go-ahead for the money and for the third one. Everybody's standing by for that, really. Including Cillian,' the director confirmed regarding Murphy's participation. Currently it's planned that he will make an appearance at the end of the Nia DaCosta (Candyman)-directed follow-up 28 Years Later: The Bone Temple, which picks up on the immediate continuation of events from Boyle's upcoming reboot sequel and is slated to open in theaters next January. 'He is in the second one,' Boyle revealed, 'I shouldn't give away too much. I'll get killed.' But we can guess that his appearance will only tease the potential of the third film, which Sony has yet to confirm. Boyle continued, 'You know that thing about sequels, you want to push it on and take huge risks.' 'I have to say fair play to [studio Sony Pictures]. They did allow us to take great liberties with [28 Years Later]. They could have said, 'Oh no, it needs to be more sequel-y. You need to rely on some of the ideas that are in the original. And what do you mean Cillian's not going to appear in the first one? I thought you said Cillian was going to be in it.' We said, 'Yeah, Cillian is going to be in it, but not quite the first one.' So fair play to them. They've put up with a lot.' 28 Years Later opens June 20.
Bloomberg
an hour ago
- Bloomberg
UK Could Miss 2030 Clean Power Goal, Parliament Committee Warns
The UK's goal of a clean power grid by 2030 is in danger of slipping out of reach as planning delays and infrastructure bottlenecks challenge the government. The ambition requires 'building more energy generation and network infrastructure at a faster pace than Great Britain has managed in recent years,' according to a report from the House of Lords Industry and Regulators Committee published on Wednesday.
