This Matthew Yglesias post covers something I’ve thought about for a long time but never articulated well… what happens to those who are not any good at things they are likely to in a world of perfect competition?
Economic theory says people/companies/countries should focus on the things at activities at which they have a comparative advantage. But what if, even at the thing they have a comparative advantage, their absolute disadvantage is huge? (And we all know some people like that. In the perfectly competitive libertarian ideal world, should they be “allowed” to starve?