Well, the gist of this entire argument is that it's the absolute advantage that counts, due to the free flow of capital. We might have made some crucial error in getting to this conclusion, but I can't find it.

And I don't think striving, as a state, to be the best you can be should be considered nationalist, at least as long nationalist has a negative connotation. I'd rather use a more positive word, like patriotic. Working for your country without kicking the shit out of other countries.

And this quest of absolute advantage, aren't corporations doing that all the time? Didn't they do it even before capital started to flow freely? Isn't globalization just another structural change to which we'll successfully adapt, just as we did all those other times?

And from a humanist point of view, if you would like to call it that, doesn't the people in Slovakia and China deserve those high value-added jobs just as much as we do? And won't their wages constantly rise as their productivity rise, hence reducing their competitivness (that is, absolute advantage) and making it easier for us to oppose lower wages at home?

Af course, this would all happen in a dynamic way and in the long run, and in the long run we are all dead.

Peak oil is not an energy crisis. It is a liquid fuel crisis.