Talk:Heckscher–Ohlin theorem

References and convention
I have no desire to cause conflict, and rarely revert non-malicious edits, but I feel in this matter I had no choice. First of all, concerning references, it does not matter that the original author did not use a particular book as his/her source; if the book cited by another editor can corroborate the article's content, then it is alright (at least, that's how I interpret WP:CITE). And as for the bolding of the original principle's statement, I have never seen such a convention in use on Wikipedia, and am not aware that the manual of style requires nor recommends its usage for anything other than the article title in the lead. Johnleemk | Talk 14:19, 27 October 2005 (UTC)


 * I appreciate your intentions; however the book you quoted is of a same sort like citing Koran in an article about Bible because it mentions Old Testament somewhere. --PBS27 09:53, 28 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Bolding of the original principle statement makes the article more readable. If you've never seen it, it doesn't say anything about its usefulness. Nobody saw a PC fifty years ago, but it doesn't necessarily imply that a PC is a bad thing. If there were any people saying “Shit, I don’t understand the article, because the theorem itself is written in bold”, than I would consider it, but stubborn conservatives doesn’t is not my cup of tea. --PBS27 09:53, 28 October 2005 (UTC)


 * P.S. Same implies for the other three theorems of the H-O Model, I can bet you won’t be able to find the principle theorem in that articles without spending considerable amount of time and energy and probably you wont find it anyway. --PBS27 09:53, 28 October 2005 (UTC)


 * You are of course correct, but it's better to cite a sub-par source than not cite at all. Not citing sources is a huge contribution to our lack of credibility. If you have your own sources, then please, do cite them and remove the one I added. And as for bolding, the fact is that Wikipedia has conventions to follow. Although they are rarely set in stone, we owe it to our readers to present a common format for our articles. (And I don't know about you, but I didn't find the bolding made the article more readable; I tend to find bolding of text that's more than a few words long irritating.) Anyway, arguing over this is LAME, so I won't bother pushing the issue further. Johnleemk | Talk 14:42, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

the U.S. (the most capital-abundant country in the world by any criteria)??
Pog 15:44, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure that this should be stated as an unreferenced fact
 * It is capital per worker that is important, not total capital, as far as the theory goes
 * I do not think that the US is the most capital-abundant country in the world per worker; hence the need for a reference!
 * Leontief's work was published 1951. At that time the US was the country with the highest capital/worker ratio. Nevertheless a reference would be nice. But the article has  many more problems. For example is the Leontief paper not even in the citations... NotYetAnotherEconomist (talk) 21:50, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Lack of Refrences
Though I believe the author of this article used proper references and resources in gaining his understanding of the Heckscher-Ohlin theorem, his interpretation of the theorem is rather biased. There is no concrete evidence that the United States is "the most capital-abundant country in the world by any criterion" and the author fails to give supporting evidence on this theory to prove his opinion.

The author also fails to mention that this model describes the economy after World War II and assumes that all countries have equal production technologies. Discussing the economy before World War II in reference to The Ricardian and discussing the drastic effect that technology has on the economy would also help gain a greater understanding of the theorem as well.

I would also suggest that the author give some background on Heckscher and Ohlin so readers are educated on exactly who developed the theorem.

KateCollins10 (talk) 04:06, 16 March 2015 (UTC)