The first part of this paper showed that the neo-classical theory of international trade leads to conclusions that contradict the facts or leads to no conclusions that can be verified. The version of the theory with two factors and the same production functions in different countries has some appeal because relative abundance of factors or intensities of their use have consistent meaning and make the theory plausible, but it results in the Leontief paradox and factor price equalisation. This appeal is lost when the number of factors is greater than two or production functions are not the same in different countries; relative abundance and intensity can not be consistently ranked or their connections to the pattern of trade is not the simple one of the Heckscher-Ohlin theory. Nor does the theory have much left to say; the kind of verifiable general prediction that was possible with two factors is not possible when the factors are more than two; such conclusions as can, in principle, be drawn are specific to the general equilibrium calculated for a given set of production functions and a given set of countries, with specified factor endowments and consumer preferences.