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.