With the famous numerical example of chapter 7 of the Principles (1817) David Ricardo intended to illustrate first and foremost the new proposition that his labor theory of value does not regulate the price of international transactions when the factors of production are immobile between countries. Unfortunately, later scholars have often omitted this proposition when referring to Ricardo's numerical example. Instead, they have highlighted only the comparative-advantage proposition, although Ricardo considered it as a corollary of the omitted proposition and therefore inextricably linked to it. This inexplicable omission has led to an incomplete understanding of the logical construction of Ricardo's numerical example, as well as to the misinterpretation of the four numbers as unitary labor costs. With an accurate understanding of Ricardo's numerical example and the logical relationship between the two propositions it meant to prove, it is relatively easy to refute the main objections that have been raised against the very same numerical example in the past. Moreover, it reaffirms the sustained relevance of Ricardo's two propositions as important insights for understanding the current process of economic globalization.

David Ricardo indicated in his famous numerical example in the Principles that it would be advantageous to Portugal to import English cloth made by 100 men, although it could have been produced locally with the labor of only 90 Portuguese men. As the production of the cloth required less quantity of labor in Portugal, it has been commonly inferred that this country had a production cost advantage over England in cloth making. This inference will be proven wrong here by showing that the English cloth had a lower cost of production than the Portuguese cloth. This finding refutes the widespread belief that Ricardo had formulated a new law, principle, or rule for international specialization, known as “comparative advantage.” He used the same rule for specialization as Adam Smith in the Wealth of Nations. Thus, the popular contraposition of Smith’s absolute versus Ricardo’s comparative cost advantage has to be dismissed.

David Ricardo indicated in his famous numerical example in the Principles that it would be advantageous to Portugal to import English cloth made by 100 men, although it could have been produced locally with the labor of only 90 Portuguese men. As the production of the cloth required less quantity of labor in Portugal, it has been commonly inferred that this country had a production cost advantage over England in cloth making. This inference will be proven wrong here by showing that the English cloth had a lower cost of production than the Portuguese cloth. This finding refutes the widespread belief that Ricardo had formulated a new law, principle or rule for international specialization, known as comparative advantage. He used the same rule for specialization as Adam Smith in the Wealth of Nations. Thus, the popular contraposition of Smith’s absolute versus Ricardo’s comparative cost advantage has to be dismissed.

The paper features a new interpretation of David Ricardo’s famous numerical example in chapter 7 of the Principles. It claims that the only purpose of the four numbers was to illustrate the proposition that the relative value of commodities produced in different countries is not determined by the respective quantities of labour devoted to the production of each. This exception would apply until capital begins to move between countries as easily as it does within the same country. Moreover, the paper debunks some entrenched myths about the numerical example. It shows that Ricardo did not leave the terms of trade unspecified; that the purpose of the four numbers was not about measuring the gains from trade; and lastly, that Portugal had no productivity advantage over England. All of this marks a radical departure from the way scholars have interpreted Ricardo’s numerical example since the mid-nineteenth century.

The paper features a new interpretation of David Ricardo's famous numerical example in chapter 7 of the Principles. It claims that the only purpose of the four numbers was to illustrate the proposition that the relative value of commodities produced in different countries is not determined by the respective quantities of labour devoted to the production of each. This exception would apply until capital begins to move between countries as easily as it does within the same country. Moreover, the paper debunks some entrenched myths about the numerical example. It shows that Ricardo did not leave the terms of trade unspecified; that the purpose of the four numbers was not about measuring the gains from trade; and lastly, that Portugal had no productivity advantage over England. All of this marks a radical departure from the way scholars have interpreted Ricardo's numerical example since the mid-nineteenth century.