Re: investment and unemployment

["ÁÎ×Ó¹â Henry C.K.Liu ¹ù¤l¥ú" <hliu@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Paul Davidson wrote:

> At 11:47 AM 04/07/2000 -0400, Warren wrote:
>
> >Comparative advantage also assumes full employment as a precondition.
> >Perhaps that is the most 'misunderstood' points among economists?
>
> Absolutely correct. Comparative advantage for the open economy is the
> equivalent of Says Law for the closed economy.  It just is the wrong
> principle  unless there is global full employment as i
>   have noted in a number of places including THE ECONOMIST.

The above conclusion is theoretically water tight. Since we are far from
global full employment, not even near zero structural unemployment globally,
and not likely to be in the foreseeable future, a condition that itself may
be structural to the existing trade regime, does this mean that trade is in
fact counter-productive economically unless full employment is set as a
pre-condition?  Anti traders have made the argument that the net effect of
trade on employment is in fact negative in many economies, even though
positive in the export sector.  The AFL-CIO thinks it is true even in the
US.  What is the post Keynesian view on this?

Henry C.K. Liu