Talk:Stolper–Samuelson theorem

Assumption needed?

"When wages rise, rent must fall, in order for equation 2 to hold true." But why wouldn't P(W) rise? That also is consistent with equation 2. Ulaniantho (talk) 21:16, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

the link given in External Links isn't valid (protected directory):

http://www.ucd.ie/economic/staff/pneary/pdf/stolpers.pdf

Stolper-Samuelson theorem dead?

The Stolper-Samuelson Theorem is certainly not dead. Most international economics courses still teach it and it provides valuable insights about income distribution and trade patterns. While it certainly has problems standing up to certain empirical tests, it is still a valuable model, especially compared to alternative models. The Ricardian model also fails many empirical tests. Ricardian models don't account for differences in factor endowments and predict that countreis will completely specialize under free trade. H-O models don't have technological differences, which is usually the source of their empirical failings, but they also correctly predict that countries will not completely specialize under free trade. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.58.195.251 (talk • contribs) 20:54, 3 May 2010

Another problem with this section of the article is the claim that Latin America is labor abundant. One doesn't look at factor abundance compared to other factors in the same country, but you look at a factor relative to the same factor in the rest of the world. Labor is scarce in Latin America. See Rogowski's book, Commerce and Coalitions, for data on labor and capital scarcity for scores of countries in several different time periods.Academic38 (talk) 07:49, 2 March 2012 (UTC)