Its amazing that in this day and age I can just push a couple of buttons and listen to a lecture by a professor at an ivy league school. This is totally underrated
I know!! Back in the years 2006 to 2010 - the time I went to college, this was never something I could think of!! • Back in 2006 to 2010, TH-cam already existed. (since 2005) However, when TH-cam first came out, it was mostly for entertainment purposes such as prank or rant videos. • I can never imagine a series of lecture videos from a professor can be found on TH-cam!!
Q Advantage TH-cam => Ivy League education For free! No tuition! Same lecture. Minus the "degree" Minus forever debt otherwise known as Student Loans! 2024 Q ❤
Not a student just a curious guy to learn how economics work and your teachings are interesting and great I already completed 2 classes.And all this is for free !! thanks Dr.Azevedo
You’re an amazing teacher! I am from Kazakhstan currently studying economics and revising materials !! You’re helping not only US students you should know that ❤😊
Dr Azevedo! I just want to say that if u were my teacher I would be a second Ludwig Erhard! Thank you very much for your videos! From Kazahstan with Respect and Love!
Some professors are such bookworms and are unwilling to give you examples different then the book such as my professional! So glad to have you posting these videos! Thank you Dr. Azevedo!
I didn’t study economics in my high school . But in my graduation , I have opted Economics as my Generic Elective . Thank you so much sir , you have made Economics so easy to understand :D
This changed my outlook completely thank you. One of those key moments where an entirely fresh and entirely counter-intuitive concept solidifies itself in your worldview.
These videos are very helpful and I enjoy listening to them. They’re a lot better than reading a textbook. Thank you! Btw, can you please make a playlist with all of the chapters in a chronological order?
The PPF will be linear when the goods on each axis are produced using the same inputs and technology. An example would be red shirts and blue shirts. The PPF will be bowed out when the inputs and technology that are used to produce the two goods are different....an example would be sandwiches and tires.
For the possible range of prices, will both parties benefit if the price is exactly on the extreme? Like in the farmer/rancher problem, how the possible price range is between 2-4 oz of potatoes for 1 oz of meat. What if the price was exactly 2 oz of potatoes for 1 oz of meat, not somewhere in the middle? Would one party have a loss?
Good question. If the price was at one endpoint or the other, then one person would not benefit from trade. For example, if the proposed trade was 1 ounce of meat for 2 ounces of potatoes, then the Rancher would not benefit from trade. It would cost the Rancher 2 ounces of potatoes to produce each ounce of meat and the Farmer is paying exactly that....the Rancher is not better off by trading.
@@ubongetim5102 The range of prices that would result in gains from trade is one ounce of meat for anything between 2 and 4 ounces of potatoes. This is why the trade I use in the example (1 ounce of meat for 3 ounces of potatoes) works. The farmer is happy with the trade because the opportunity cost of producing an ounce of meat for the farmer is 4 ounces of potatoes. The trade allows the farmer to get it for only 3 ounces of potatoes. They can buy meat for less than it would cost them to make it themselves. The rancher is also happy with the trade because each ounce of meat costs the rancher 2 ounces of potatoes to produce. The rancher can sell each ounce of meat for 3 ounces of potatoes. They can sell meat for more than it costs them to produce it. So both the farmer and rancher are made better off by the trade of 1 ounce of meat for 3 ounces of potatoes. The question asks about what would happen if the trade was at either extreme (1 ounce of meat for 2 ounces of potatoes or 1 ounce of meat for 4 ounces of potatoes). In this case, only one person would gain from the trade. The other person would not be hurt, but they would be indifferent between trading and not trading. I hope that helps.
I will start my Econ Undergrad next month. So i thought how about get some prelimenary ideas about the fundamentals. And id be damned, i came across your channel🎉🤲😭🙏
In the US:Mexico (food:computer) example, am I mistaken in my assessment that the total production of computers by the US is not optimal to produce enough food for gains from trade? I hope I'm phrasing my question correctly.
Thank you so much for this. I have a question, How did we come about the Rancher producing 18 ounce of Meat and 12 ounce of potatoes. Was that an assumption ? Also the trade off where Farmer gains 5 ounce of meat and gives the rancher 15 ounce of potatoes. i got lost in these parts.
The choice of having the Rancher produce 18 ounces of meat and 12 ounces of potatoes is somewhat arbitrary. Actually, the gains from trade would be even bigger in this problem if the Rancher specialized completely in meat. In the problems that I give my students on this model, I tell them to have each person specialize completely in the good for which they have the comparative advantage. The choice of the trade is similar. The trade in this problem is just one of an infinite number of trades that would make both people better off. This trade (5 ounces of meat for 15 ounces of potatoes) implies a price of 5/15 (or 1/3), which falls between the two opportunity costs. Any trade that implies a price between the two opportunity costs would create gains.
Poker is not a zero-sum game because there is a rake. However, if we ignore the rake: If one player starts with $150 and another with $100: a) In a single hand, one player can only win up to $100 from the other. b) Over multiple hands, either player could potentially win all the money from the other. I didn't get where $50 comes into play
This chapter is often included in both microeconomics and macroeconomics. The chapter looks at the benefits that people (and countries) can get from voluntary trade. That is of interest whether we are talking about micro (people interacting with other people, firms, etc.) or whether we are talking about macro (how economies function, interaction between countries, etc.).
im not good in english so i learn not so well but can i ask u say we can specializes what we do best so the cake of economic will biggeer so if farmer only focus potatoes he get 32 and rancher get 24 meat ex famer focus potato and get 32potatoes and rancher have 18 meat and 12 potato => world have 44 potatoes and 18 meat i know the 1 meat in this case = 3 potatoes but amount potatoes have decreased so we just need the value of the economic increase ? can anyone explane for me im get troble that point
You're correct, but you've missed the point. The point of this particular video is to discuss and illustrate the sources of the gains from trade. If you want to see a more thorough discussion of the model that includes prices, take a look at the videos on the Ricardian Model in my playlist for International Economics. th-cam.com/play/PLTjEimbqDkpBxcrJl6t8c_87B8zYmr4Mh.html
@@DrAzevedoEcon Thanks for the reply. The point was that under capitalism the source of gains cannot come from trade like that of a barter economy. Within a barter system two different qualities (i.e. meat and potatoes) are exchanged directly, therefore making it possible for individuals to ‘gain’ through exchange. However, capitalism is defined as a system of production and exchange for profit. In other words, we now have a group of people who start with a given sum of money and end with a given sum of money. It’s no longer about trading different qualities but increasing the quantity of the same quality (money). And what would be the point of exchanging the same amount of money (i.e. $100 for $100)-who would gain from that trade? Therefore, the source of gains (profit) must be in the sphere of production not exchange. If you’re interested, both Piero Sraffa and Karl Marx have critiqued Ricardo on this issue.
@@coreyjones8273 Trade doesn't have to be goods for goods. If I take some money and exchange it for goods, that is also a trade. None of the conclusions that I come to are dependent on barter, and everything relates just fine to a capitalist system. I'm familiar with the criticisms....I don't find them persuasive.
Its amazing that in this day and age I can just push a couple of buttons and listen to a lecture by a professor at an ivy league school. This is totally underrated
I know!! Back in the years 2006 to 2010 - the time I went to college, this was never something I could think of!!
• Back in 2006 to 2010, TH-cam already existed. (since 2005) However, when TH-cam first came out, it was mostly for entertainment purposes such as prank or rant videos.
• I can never imagine a series of lecture videos from a professor can be found on TH-cam!!
Q
Advantage
TH-cam => Ivy League education
For free! No tuition! Same lecture.
Minus the "degree"
Minus forever debt otherwise known as
Student Loans!
2024
Q ❤
Not a student just a curious guy to learn how economics work and your teachings are interesting and great I already completed 2 classes.And all this is for free !! thanks Dr.Azevedo
Thanks for watching! I'm glad to hear the videos are useful.
Video is 4 years old but this teaching will keep helping students forever. Dr Azevedo you're Amazing Sir
You’re an amazing teacher! I am from Kazakhstan currently studying economics and revising materials !! You’re helping not only US students you should know that ❤😊
Thanks for the note! I'm very happy the videos are helping students everywhere!
Где вы учитесь? Мне он очень помог, я с Казгюу, Астана
@@DrAzevedoEcon thank you so much for you videos. You are the best principles of Economics lecturer
Dr Azevedo! I just want to say that if u were my teacher I would be a second Ludwig Erhard! Thank you very much for your videos! From Kazahstan with Respect and Love!
Haha! Very happy to help!
So do I. Thank you sir😊😊😊
You don’t know how much you’re helping me. God bless you
You are one of the most underrated youtube economics teacher on the Internet!!!!
Thanks! Glad to help!
Some professors are such bookworms and are unwilling to give you examples different then the book such as my professional! So glad to have you posting these videos! Thank you Dr. Azevedo!
I’m so glad I found this channel, some really valuable tools, I’m going to chew through these lessons :) Thanks Prof
Amazing! the best economic lesson in TH-cam
on*
@@Hoangys en
@@Hoangys pp
I didn’t study economics in my high school . But in my graduation , I have opted Economics as my Generic Elective . Thank you so much sir , you have made Economics so easy to understand :D
I'm glad to have helped!
Hey! Same here. Which college are you from?
@@divyanshiverma9172 I am from Miranda House . R u also from MH ?
@@shreoshitarapdar5775 LSR :)
@@divyanshiverma9172 Great ! Divided by campus united by DU 😂🙌🏻
This changed my outlook completely thank you. One of those key moments where an entirely fresh and entirely counter-intuitive concept solidifies itself in your worldview.
Wow, exllecent at teaching! I can finally understand Microeconomics. Crashing my course with confidence, Prof! Thank you so much!!!
Wow!! watching your video helped me understand this chapter so much clearly! Thank you so much!
thank you for helping me survive in micro class, professor
You are very welcome! Glad you survived! :)
best teacher on youtube, sir your lessons are amazing.
You deserve the Dr. title Sir, what an amazing teacher you are. God bless you
you are the best teacher i have ever seen thank you your vidios healped me alot.
Thanks!
Thank you! Thanks for watching!
I`m watching this for the fun of learning
you are a great teacher
I appreciate the kind words! Thanks for watching.
These videos are very helpful and I enjoy listening to them. They’re a lot better than reading a textbook.
Thank you!
Btw, can you please make a playlist with all of the chapters in a chronological order?
You're right. They're quite easier than reading a textbook.
Concepts are crystal clear..✨👍🏻💕
thankyou sir🤍
You're welcome!
Thank you so much for this lecture. As another comment mentioned, it is an honor to listen to your lecture 😊
It's an honor to have to watch the video! Glad to help!
Thank you ; brilliant
Amazing!! ❤🥲✨✨
Glad to help!
I'm obsessed with economics now😮
you're great
You are a god
Haha! Thanks!
Thank you It was a very helpful lecturer and i really hope you continue to make such lectures again thanks a lot sir
Sirrrr you're a legend!!!! 💛😭
excellent lecture. Thanks for sharing.
You're welcome!
Thanks sir for such nice videos from India
Very well explained
This is mind blowing. Thanks for sharing.
You are really helping me. Thanks
Thankyou sir, crystal clear for beginner on economics like me :)
My mind just blew away seeing the trade results
Amazing lecture l have had ever.
Thanks for watching!
WONDERFUL SIR
Thank you!
Great explanation
Why do we get 5 oz meat and give 15 potatoes? Are these numbers standard or do they have a special explanation for being chosen
I like it
Thanks for this impaccable explanation. Could you please explain on what makes bowed PPF different from linear PPF? It would be awesome with examples
The PPF will be linear when the goods on each axis are produced using the same inputs and technology. An example would be red shirts and blue shirts. The PPF will be bowed out when the inputs and technology that are used to produce the two goods are different....an example would be sandwiches and tires.
@@DrAzevedoEcon It is totally clear now. Thanks a lot
❤❤❤
👍
Thank you
BEST LECTURE EVER😍👌
Thanks for watching!
Brilliant
Well done.
Thanks!
For the possible range of prices, will both parties benefit if the price is exactly on the extreme? Like in the farmer/rancher problem, how the possible price range is between 2-4 oz of potatoes for 1 oz of meat. What if the price was exactly 2 oz of potatoes for 1 oz of meat, not somewhere in the middle? Would one party have a loss?
Good question. If the price was at one endpoint or the other, then one person would not benefit from trade. For example, if the proposed trade was 1 ounce of meat for 2 ounces of potatoes, then the Rancher would not benefit from trade. It would cost the Rancher 2 ounces of potatoes to produce each ounce of meat and the Farmer is paying exactly that....the Rancher is not better off by trading.
@@DrAzevedoEcon Ah, that makes sense. Thank you!! Love your videos :)
Thanks!
@@DrAzevedoEconI must confess, I don't seem to get the question and your explanation here. Thank you Dr.
@@ubongetim5102 The range of prices that would result in gains from trade is one ounce of meat for anything between 2 and 4 ounces of potatoes. This is why the trade I use in the example (1 ounce of meat for 3 ounces of potatoes) works. The farmer is happy with the trade because the opportunity cost of producing an ounce of meat for the farmer is 4 ounces of potatoes. The trade allows the farmer to get it for only 3 ounces of potatoes. They can buy meat for less than it would cost them to make it themselves.
The rancher is also happy with the trade because each ounce of meat costs the rancher 2 ounces of potatoes to produce. The rancher can sell each ounce of meat for 3 ounces of potatoes. They can sell meat for more than it costs them to produce it.
So both the farmer and rancher are made better off by the trade of 1 ounce of meat for 3 ounces of potatoes. The question asks about what would happen if the trade was at either extreme (1 ounce of meat for 2 ounces of potatoes or 1 ounce of meat for 4 ounces of potatoes). In this case, only one person would gain from the trade. The other person would not be hurt, but they would be indifferent between trading and not trading.
I hope that helps.
thanks a lot for this,
You're welcome!!
Great explanation, thanks!
20:30 why 5oz of meat for 15oz of potatoes. is it jjust some random value you took up?
ohhhh...I got it. you explained that part later
I will start my Econ Undergrad next month. So i thought how about get some prelimenary ideas about the fundamentals. And id be damned, i came across your channel🎉🤲😭🙏
🤯 🤯 🤯 25:00
In the US:Mexico (food:computer) example, am I mistaken in my assessment that the total production of computers by the US is not optimal to produce enough food for gains from trade? I hope I'm phrasing my question correctly.
Thank you so much for this. I have a question, How did we come about the Rancher producing 18 ounce of Meat and 12 ounce of potatoes. Was that an assumption ? Also the trade off where Farmer gains 5 ounce of meat and gives the rancher 15 ounce of potatoes. i got lost in these parts.
The choice of having the Rancher produce 18 ounces of meat and 12 ounces of potatoes is somewhat arbitrary. Actually, the gains from trade would be even bigger in this problem if the Rancher specialized completely in meat. In the problems that I give my students on this model, I tell them to have each person specialize completely in the good for which they have the comparative advantage.
The choice of the trade is similar. The trade in this problem is just one of an infinite number of trades that would make both people better off. This trade (5 ounces of meat for 15 ounces of potatoes) implies a price of 5/15 (or 1/3), which falls between the two opportunity costs. Any trade that implies a price between the two opportunity costs would create gains.
@@DrAzevedoEcon Thank you so much ☺
Thank you...
thanks a lot sir.
You're welcome!
Poker is not a zero-sum game because there is a rake. However, if we ignore the rake:
If one player starts with $150 and another with $100:
a) In a single hand, one player can only win up to $100 from the other.
b) Over multiple hands, either player could potentially win all the money from the other.
I didn't get where $50 comes into play
I guess what a zero sum game basically means is that for one to make money , the other one has to lose money !
Is which course this chapter "Gains of Trade" belongs to
Microeconomics or
Macroeconomics ?????
Hope you will answer mee soon dear sir
This chapter is often included in both microeconomics and macroeconomics. The chapter looks at the benefits that people (and countries) can get from voluntary trade. That is of interest whether we are talking about micro (people interacting with other people, firms, etc.) or whether we are talking about macro (how economies function, interaction between countries, etc.).
@@DrAzevedoEcon
Got it Thank You So Much Sir
@@DrAzevedoEconcurrently I'm doing a course on International Trade. It's a separate course on it own. From Nigeria
@@ubongetim5102 Which textbook are you using for your International Trade class?
hi can ask about the name of book , i want to know if it is like the content of my book
I use the book Principles of Economics by Mankiw.
I become hungry for meat and potatos 🤣
im not good in english so i learn not so well
but can i ask u say we can specializes what we do best so the cake of economic will biggeer
so if farmer only focus potatoes he get 32 and rancher get 24 meat
ex famer focus potato and get 32potatoes and rancher have 18 meat and 12 potato => world have 44 potatoes and 18 meat
i know the 1 meat in this case = 3 potatoes
but amount potatoes have decreased so we just need the value of the economic increase ?
can anyone explane for me im get troble that point
👍👍
Waah buddhe bhaisahab. Eee jo 1 ghante ka bhideo bana diye ho, humra net khatam hogyi hai. Keshe parhu ab. Tum thoda poisa do
Nahi hoga tumhare paas poisa. Humra Morzi hom nahi porhega
Please translate that to Arabic because i can't understand English language
28:31
I don't think it's good to specialize 100% in one product & relying on other people for other products
The last time I checked capitalism is NOT a barter system.
You're correct, but you've missed the point. The point of this particular video is to discuss and illustrate the sources of the gains from trade. If you want to see a more thorough discussion of the model that includes prices, take a look at the videos on the Ricardian Model in my playlist for International Economics.
th-cam.com/play/PLTjEimbqDkpBxcrJl6t8c_87B8zYmr4Mh.html
@@DrAzevedoEcon Thanks for the reply.
The point was that under capitalism the source of gains cannot come from trade like that of a barter economy. Within a barter system two different qualities (i.e. meat and potatoes) are exchanged directly, therefore making it possible for individuals to ‘gain’ through exchange.
However, capitalism is defined as a system of production and exchange for profit. In other words, we now have a group of people who start with a given sum of money and end with a given sum of money. It’s no longer about trading different qualities but increasing the quantity of the same quality (money). And what would be the point of exchanging the same amount of money (i.e. $100 for $100)-who would gain from that trade? Therefore, the source of gains (profit) must be in the sphere of production not exchange.
If you’re interested, both Piero Sraffa and Karl Marx have critiqued Ricardo on this issue.
@@coreyjones8273 Trade doesn't have to be goods for goods. If I take some money and exchange it for goods, that is also a trade. None of the conclusions that I come to are dependent on barter, and everything relates just fine to a capitalist system. I'm familiar with the criticisms....I don't find them persuasive.
Garcia Anna Thompson Michelle Johnson Robert