Imports are a net benefit, exports are a net cost

[Pksimon2007]

In a nonmonetary economy, we think of comparative advantage.

Does that work in a monetary economy?

Exports = shipping real wealth you could be enjoying to foreign countries for others to enjoy.

Imports = allowing foreigners to ship their real wealth to you, so that you can enjoy it.

 

[Moonglow]

Products come in nation, money leave nation...

Products leave nation, money come back to nation....

Next; how prostitution persisted through the ages...

 

[Pksimon2007]

Products come in nation, money leave nation...

Products leave nation, money come back to nation....

Next; how prostitution persisted through the ages...

So does comparative advantage remain, or are we just bored?

 

[Moonglow]

Products come in nation, money leave nation...

Products leave nation, money come back to nation....

Next; how prostitution persisted through the ages...

So does comparative advantage remain, or are we just bored?

Not if it runs into billions in an imbalance....yeah, bored

 

[bripat9643]

In a nonmonetary economy, we think of comparative advantage.

Does that work in a monetary economy?

Exports = shipping real wealth you could be enjoying to foreign countries for others to enjoy.

Imports = allowing foreigners to ship their real wealth to you, so that you can enjoy it.

All economies are monetary economies. Money has been around since the Bronze age.

 

[Pksimon2007]

Except the economies in most textbooks, which is the point.

The idea of comparative advantage was developed using an idea about how the economy worked which essentially saw all transactions as barter transactions, with money, to the extent it was considered at all, to have purely nominal effects.

Now I'm going to lift Ricardo off the hook and say that this is no rap on him, but only on later economists. Ricardo qualified his concept in a very important way which most modern economists have forgotten.

 

[Moonglow]

This thread is dryer than a baked turkey with no basting...

 

[Pksimon2007]

In a nonmonetary economy, we think of comparative advantage.

Does that work in a monetary economy?

Exports = shipping real wealth you could be enjoying to foreign countries for others to enjoy.

Imports = allowing foreigners to ship their real wealth to you, so that you can enjoy it.

All economies are monetary economies. Money has been around since the Bronze age.

- Oh, I should have clarified this for you.

David Ricardo was an early English economist, who responded in many ways to Adam Smith, and with Smith, wrote the foundations of all modern economics.

He had a theory of comparative advantage, which argued essentially that it was always mutually beneficial for nations to trade. This was an attack on mercantilism. But he did admit that there were some exceptions which have been forgotten.

 

[Pksimon2007]

This thread is dryer than a baked turkey with no basting...

Economics isn't everyone's cup of tea - but here you are, trolling a thread about economics on an economics discussion board, complaining that it's....about economics.

 

[Moonglow]

This thread is dryer than a baked turkey with no basting...

Economics isn't everyone's cup of tea - but here you are, trolling a thread about economics on an economics discussion board, complaining that it's....about economics.

No, economics is kewl, your mastery of it is not.........try being a little more precise in your statements of doctorate level knowledge...

 

[bripat9643]

Except the economies in most textbooks, which is the point.

The idea of comparative advantage was developed using an idea about how the economy worked which essentially saw all transactions as barter transactions, with money, to the extent it was considered at all, to have purely nominal effects.

That's absolutely false.

Now I'm going to lift Ricardo off the hook and say that this is no rap on him, but only on later economists. Ricardo qualified his concept in a very important way which most modern economists have forgotten.

In what way was that? When I was in school my instructor even used money to explain why it didn't benefit a lawyer to do his own typing even if he was a better typist than his secretary.

 

[bripat9643]

In a nonmonetary economy, we think of comparative advantage.

Does that work in a monetary economy?

Exports = shipping real wealth you could be enjoying to foreign countries for others to enjoy.

Imports = allowing foreigners to ship their real wealth to you, so that you can enjoy it.

All economies are monetary economies. Money has been around since the Bronze age.

- Oh, I should have clarified this for you.

David Ricardo was an early English economist, who responded in many ways to Adam Smith, and with Smith, wrote the foundations of all modern economics.

He had a theory of comparative advantage, which argued essentially that it was always mutually beneficial for nations to trade. This was an attack on mercantilism. But he did admit that there were some exceptions which have been forgotten.

What does that have to do with money economies? Trade is always accomplished with exchanges using money.

 

[Pksimon2007]

This thread is dryer than a baked turkey with no basting...

Economics isn't everyone's cup of tea - but here you are, trolling a thread about economics on an economics discussion board, complaining that it's....about economics.

No, economics is kewl, your mastery of it is not.........try being a little more precise in your statements of doctorate level knowledge...

I'm not addressing doctoral candidates, big guy.

 

[Pksimon2007]

Except the economies in most textbooks, which is the point.

The idea of comparative advantage was developed using an idea about how the economy worked which essentially saw all transactions as barter transactions, with money, to the extent it was considered at all, to have purely nominal effects.

That's absolutely false.

Now I'm going to lift Ricardo off the hook and say that this is no rap on him, but only on later economists. Ricardo qualified his concept in a very important way which most modern economists have forgotten.

In what way was that? When I was in school my instructor even used money to explain why it didn't benefit a lawyer to do his own typing even if he was a better typist than his secretary.

- That's a nominal effect

 

[Pksimon2007]

Except the economies in most textbooks, which is the point.

The idea of comparative advantage was developed using an idea about how the economy worked which essentially saw all transactions as barter transactions, with money, to the extent it was considered at all, to have purely nominal effects.

That's absolutely false.

Now I'm going to lift Ricardo off the hook and say that this is no rap on him, but only on later economists. Ricardo qualified his concept in a very important way which most modern economists have forgotten.

In what way was that? When I was in school my instructor even used money to explain why it didn't benefit a lawyer to do his own typing even if he was a better typist than his secretary.

I thought on the other thread you said you didn't go to school?

 

[Pksimon2007]

In a nonmonetary economy, we think of comparative advantage.

Does that work in a monetary economy?

Exports = shipping real wealth you could be enjoying to foreign countries for others to enjoy.

Imports = allowing foreigners to ship their real wealth to you, so that you can enjoy it.

All economies are monetary economies. Money has been around since the Bronze age.

- Oh, I should have clarified this for you.

David Ricardo was an early English economist, who responded in many ways to Adam Smith, and with Smith, wrote the foundations of all modern economics.

He had a theory of comparative advantage, which argued essentially that it was always mutually beneficial for nations to trade. This was an attack on mercantilism. But he did admit that there were some exceptions which have been forgotten.

What does that have to do with money economies? Trade is always accomplished with exchanges using money.

- I'm asking the question. Do you have any ideas as to the answer?

 

[bripat9643]

Except the economies in most textbooks, which is the point.

The idea of comparative advantage was developed using an idea about how the economy worked which essentially saw all transactions as barter transactions, with money, to the extent it was considered at all, to have purely nominal effects.

That's absolutely false.

Now I'm going to lift Ricardo off the hook and say that this is no rap on him, but only on later economists. Ricardo qualified his concept in a very important way which most modern economists have forgotten.

In what way was that? When I was in school my instructor even used money to explain why it didn't benefit a lawyer to do his own typing even if he was a better typist than his secretary.

- That's a nominal effect

It's not a "nominal effect." It's an example of the principle in action. I doubt you even understand the principle of comparative advantage.

 

[bripat9643]

In a nonmonetary economy, we think of comparative advantage.

Does that work in a monetary economy?

Exports = shipping real wealth you could be enjoying to foreign countries for others to enjoy.

Imports = allowing foreigners to ship their real wealth to you, so that you can enjoy it.

All economies are monetary economies. Money has been around since the Bronze age.

- Oh, I should have clarified this for you.

David Ricardo was an early English economist, who responded in many ways to Adam Smith, and with Smith, wrote the foundations of all modern economics.

He had a theory of comparative advantage, which argued essentially that it was always mutually beneficial for nations to trade. This was an attack on mercantilism. But he did admit that there were some exceptions which have been forgotten.

What does that have to do with money economies? Trade is always accomplished with exchanges using money.

- I'm asking the question. Do you have any ideas as to the answer?

Your question is idiotic because it assumes trade occurs without using money. Virtually all trade involves and exchange of money.

 

[Pksimon2007]

In a nonmonetary economy, we think of comparative advantage.

Does that work in a monetary economy?

Exports = shipping real wealth you could be enjoying to foreign countries for others to enjoy.

Imports = allowing foreigners to ship their real wealth to you, so that you can enjoy it.

All economies are monetary economies. Money has been around since the Bronze age.

- Oh, I should have clarified this for you.

David Ricardo was an early English economist, who responded in many ways to Adam Smith, and with Smith, wrote the foundations of all modern economics.

He had a theory of comparative advantage, which argued essentially that it was always mutually beneficial for nations to trade. This was an attack on mercantilism. But he did admit that there were some exceptions which have been forgotten.

What does that have to do with money economies? Trade is always accomplished with exchanges using money.

- I'm asking the question. Do you have any ideas as to the answer?

Your question is idiotic because it assumes trade occurs without using money. Virtually all trade involves and exchange of money.

On the contrary.

Classical theory assumed that money was a nominal "veil" over trade which had no real effects (mainstream economics still assumes this today, and is taught this way).

I am asking, if you drop that assumption and allow that money may have real effects, does the doctrine of comparative advantage still make sense?

It is not a left-right question, so none of your usual bumper stickers will serve to answer it.

 

[bripat9643]

All economies are monetary economies. Money has been around since the Bronze age.

- Oh, I should have clarified this for you.

David Ricardo was an early English economist, who responded in many ways to Adam Smith, and with Smith, wrote the foundations of all modern economics.

He had a theory of comparative advantage, which argued essentially that it was always mutually beneficial for nations to trade. This was an attack on mercantilism. But he did admit that there were some exceptions which have been forgotten.

What does that have to do with money economies? Trade is always accomplished with exchanges using money.

- I'm asking the question. Do you have any ideas as to the answer?

Your question is idiotic because it assumes trade occurs without using money. Virtually all trade involves and exchange of money.

On the contrary.

Classical theory assumed that money was a nominal "veil" over trade which had no real effects (mainstream economics still assumes this today, and is taught this way).

ROFL! Really? Can you quote some classical economist saying such a thing?

I am asking, if you drop that assumption and allow that money may have real effects, does the doctrine of comparative advantage still make sense?

It is not a left-right question, so none of your usual bumper stickers will serve to answer it.

I don't know how it makes any sense whatsoever if you don't take prices into consideration. How would you determine you are better off if not for the prices of the goods in question? If Honduras can produce bananas for $0.05/lb, we are crazy to attempt growing them here in greenhouses for $5.00/lb, don't you think? If you don't know the price of bananas, then how do you know you're better off buying them from Honduras?