that say(or seem to say)that the experts have all been wrong are far more likely to attract a wide audience than books that explain why the experts are probably right. Stephen Jay Goulds Wonderful L ife( Gould 1989)which to many readers seemed to say that recent discoveries refute Darwinian orthodoxy, attracted far more attention than Richard Dawkins' equally well-written The blind atchmaker (Dawkins 1986), which explained the astonishing implications of that orthodoxy. (See Dennett for an eye-opening discussion of Gould ) Roger Penrose's The Emperor's New Mind, which rejects the possibility of explaining intelligence in terms of computational processes, attracted far more attention than any of the exciting discoveries of cognitive scientists who are actually trying to understand the nature of intelligence The same principle applies to international economics. Comparative advantage is an old idea intellectuals who want to read about international trade want to hear radical new ideas. not boring old doctrines, even if they are quite blurry about what those doctrines actually say. Robert Reich, now Secretary of Labor, understood this point perfectly when he wrote an essay for Foreign Affairs entitled"Beyond free trade".(Reich 1983 ) The article received wide attention, even though it was fairly unclear exactly how Reich proposed to go beyond free trade( there is a certain similarity between Reich and Gould in this respect: they make a great show of offering new ideas, but it is quite hard to pin down just what those new ideas really are). The great selling point was, clearly, the article's title free trade is old hat, it is something we must go beyond. In this sort of intellectual environment, it is quite hard to get anyone other than an economics student to sit still for an explanation of the concept of comparative advantage. Just imagine trying to tell an ambitious, energetic, forward-looking intellectual who is interested in economics --William Jefferson Clinton comes to mind --that before he can start talking knowledgeably about globalization and the information economy he must wrap his mind around a difficult concept that was devised by a frock- coated banker 180 years ago 3. A harder concept than it seems To a trained economist, the basic Ricardian model seems almost trivial. Two goods, two countries one productive factor, perfect competition: what could be simpler? Indeed, one of the fierce joys of being an international trade economist is that so many seemingly sophisticated tracts can be revealed as nonsense, so many self-important men unmasked as poseurs, using such a minimalist framework And yet if one tries to explain the basic model to a non-economist, it soon becomes clear that it really isn't that simple after all. Teaching the model, to docile students, is one thing they get the model in the course of a broader study of economics, and in any case they are obliged to pay attention and learn it the way you teach it if they want to pass the exam. But try to explain the model to an adult, especially one who already has opinions about the subject, and you continually find yourself obliged this paper was written, I was trying to explain to an editorial writer for a major U.S. newspaper wy a to backtrack, realizing that yet another proposition you thought was obvious actually isn't Just bef international trade is probably not the main cause of the country's ills. After a confused interlude, it became clear what one of the blocks was: he just didn,' t understand, even after being told the numbers, why a situation in which productivity increases were not being shared with workers would that share in practice is a crucial piece of evidence. Eventrz ome -- and therefore why the stability of necessarily be reflected in a decline in the labor share of in I was reduced nearly to baby-talk ("suppose the factory produces 10 tons of cheese, and pays out wages equal in value to 6 tons;now suppose that the workers become more productive and turn out 12 tons of cheese, but that wages haven't changed. ) This was not a successful conversation: he wanted to talk about global trendsthat say (or seem to say) that the experts have all been wrong are far more likely to attract a wide audience than books that explain why the experts are probably right. Stephen Jay Gould's Wonderful Life (Gould 1989) which to many readers seemed to say that recent discoveries refute Darwinian orthodoxy, attracted far more attention than Richard Dawkins' equally well-written The Blind Watchmaker (Dawkins 1986), which explained the astonishing implications of that orthodoxy. (See Dennett for an eye-opening discussion of Gould). Roger Penrose's The Emperor's New Mind, which rejects the possibility of explaining intelligence in terms of computational processes, attracted far more attention than any of the exciting discoveries of cognitive scientists who are actually trying to understand the nature of intelligence. The same principle applies to international economics. Comparative advantage is an old idea; intellectuals who want to read about international trade want to hear radical new ideas, not boring old doctrines, even if they are quite blurry about what those doctrines actually say. Robert Reich, now Secretary of Labor, understood this point perfectly when he wrote an essay for Foreign Affairs entitled "Beyond free trade". (Reich 1983). The article received wide attention, even though it was fairly unclear exactly how Reich proposed to go beyond free trade (there is a certain similarity between Reich and Gould in this respect: they make a great show of offering new ideas, but it is quite hard to pin down just what those new ideas really are). The great selling point was, clearly, the article's title: free trade is old hat, it is something we must go beyond. In this sort of intellectual environment, it is quite hard to get anyone other than an economics student to sit still for an explanation of the concept of comparative advantage. Just imagine trying to tell an ambitious, energetic, forward-looking intellectual who is interested in economics -- William Jefferson Clinton comes to mind -- that before he can start talking knowledgeably about globalization and the information economy he must wrap his mind around a difficult concept that was devised by a frock￾coated banker 180 years ago! 3. A harder concept than it seems To a trained economist, the basic Ricardian model seems almost trivial. Two goods, two countries, one productive factor, perfect competition: what could be simpler? Indeed, one of the fierce joys of being an international trade economist is that so many seemingly sophisticated tracts can be revealed as nonsense, so many self-important men unmasked as poseurs, using such a minimalist framework. And yet if one tries to explain the basic model to a non-economist, it soon becomes clear that it really isn't that simple after all. Teaching the model, to docile students, is one thing: they get the model in the course of a broader study of economics, and in any case they are obliged to pay attention and learn it the way you teach it if they want to pass the exam. But try to explain the model to an adult, especially one who already has opinions about the subject, and you continually find yourself obliged to backtrack, realizing that yet another proposition you thought was obvious actually isn't. Just before this paper was written, I was trying to explain to an editorial writer for a major U.S. newspaper why international trade is probably not the main cause of the country's ills. After a confused interlude, it became clear what one of the blocks was: he just didn't understand, even after being told the numbers, why a situation in which productivity increases were not being shared with workers would necessarily be reflected in a decline in the labor share of income -- and therefore why the stability of that share in practice is a crucial piece of evidence. Eventually I was reduced nearly to baby-talk ("suppose the factory produces 10 tons of cheese, and pays out wages equal in value to 6 tons; now suppose that the workers become more productive and turn out 12 tons of cheese, but that wages haven't changed ..."). This was not a successful conversation: he wanted to talk about global trends