I get the trade-in balance argument - that's fundamentally a macro question about how savings flows interact with investment patterns. But I'm skeptical about the comparative advantage narrative here.

Think about it: imagine a nation with limited natural resources and no established track record in high-end professional services. The textbook theory suggests they'll naturally find their niche through comparative advantage. Really though? The reality's messier.

The classical model assumes frictionless markets and perfect mobility, but actual economies face structural constraints that theory glosses over. A resource-poor country without institutional depth in specialized services can't just bootstrap into comparative advantage - there's path dependency, coordination failures, and capital requirements that create serious barriers to entry.