If person A continue to sell something that will damage the productivity of person B, what is person B going to give person A for the 'something' person A is selling?
Uncle B has already pointed out that person B will begin to sell its WEALTH to person A. However, is it sustainable if you have a trade deficit forever (for person B), or trade surplus (for A)?
Even that is unrealistic. Because as trade deficit continue, it will make everything from China cheaper with a deflating currency (look at US of A today). B seems to be claiming the first thing that will caught the Westerner's eyes is our woman, I would have think they will be more interested in our tea instead. What about land? Why would they buy the land if it is turning less and less productive? (look at US today, will you buy they homes if the US economy is promised to fall in the future?) If they do buy it, would they not try to eradicate the drug problem to make the land more productive? (For example, the Chineses that is brought to US and is semi-ban from taking the drug. In fact, would anyone shit in their factory, no matter where it is located?)
Wheras there is 100% of product from A and product from B to share even if they never trade, there is only 100% product from A and a smaller % from B to share with. A will not be able to have a gain without seriously taking the share from B, and at that, B will have a high incentive to revolt against A!
------------------
You can't complete an anaylsis without considering the alternative, what if B would open itself to product that enhences itself?
According to Ricardo, the productivity will increase in normal trade! There will be 100%+ product from A and B if, for example, fabric and tea is traded. With more than 200% goods share between the 2, the question become how it is share!
----------------------
New York Fries also has Poutine fries. Did they steal the culture from Canada?
I heard that the unique fries eating culture in Canada is having fries with vinegar instead of ketchup.