Imports are a net benefit, exports are a net cost

[Pksimon2007]

- 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?

- Can I quote a classical economist saying that? Sure, but I'm. On my phone at the moment. Are you serious that you didn't know this?

Maybe your need for education warrants some classes or something.

Prices are nominal.



I think I see the problem.

When we speak of nominal effects, we mean that real wealth is translated into money through an exchange rate. That's nominal.

That doesn't have any real effect, which would be something like changing people's decisions about production, the distribution of wealth, and so on.

 

[bripat9643]

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?

- Can I quote a classical economist saying that? Sure, but I'm. On my phone at the moment. Are you serious that you didn't know this?

Maybe your need for education warrants some classes or something.

Prices are nominal.



I think I see the problem.

When we speak of nominal effects, we mean that real wealth is translated into money through an exchange rate. That's nominal.

That doesn't have any real effect, which would be something like changing people's decisions about production, the distribution of wealth, and so on.

I love the way you pretend you're some kind of expert on economics when you are obviously ignorant of the subject.

So you can't answer my question because you're "on the phone," but you can post the above?" Are you serious?

When you say "prices are nominal" you are using the following definition of "nominal:"

The distinction between real value and nominal value occurs in many fields. From a philosophical viewpoint, nominal value represents an accepted condition which is a goal or an approximation as opposed to the real value, which is always present. Often a "nominal" value is "de facto" rather than an exact, typical, or average measurement.​

In other words, the price is not the real value. Only someone totally clueless would make such a claim because there is no "true value" other than the market price. "True value" is a Marxist concept, not an economic concept.

I'm not sure what "real affect" you think a price is supposed to have other than the ones we always discuss in economics which is supply and demand. You have to be an ignoramus to believe supply and demand are not real effects.

It's pointless to even discuss this with you because your concepts are total gibberish and have nothing to do with real economics.

 

[Pksimon2007]

- 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?

- Can I quote a classical economist saying that? Sure, but I'm. On my phone at the moment. Are you serious that you didn't know this?

Maybe your need for education warrants some classes or something.

Prices are nominal.



I think I see the problem.

When we speak of nominal effects, we mean that real wealth is translated into money through an exchange rate. That's nominal.

That doesn't have any real effect, which would be something like changing people's decisions about production, the distribution of wealth, and so on.

I love the way you pretend you're some kind of expert on economics when you are obviously ignorant of the subject.

So you can't answer my question because you're "on the phone," but you can post the above?" Are you serious?

When you say "prices are nominal" you are using the following definition of "nominal:"

The distinction between real value and nominal value occurs in many fields. From a philosophical viewpoint, nominal value represents an accepted condition which is a goal or an approximation as opposed to the real value, which is always present. Often a "nominal" value is "de facto" rather than an exact, typical, or average measurement.​

In other words, the price is not the real value. Only someone totally clueless would make such a claim because there is no "true value" other than the market price. "True value" is a Marxist concept, not an economic concept.

I'm not sure what "real affect" you think a price is supposed to have other than the ones we always discuss in economics with is supply and demand. You have to be an ignoramus to believe supply and demand are not real effects.

It's pointless to even discuss this with you because your concepts are total gibberish and have nothing to do with real economics.

I just explained the difference between real effects and nominal effects.

Here's a nominal effect: we add money to the economy. The ratio of money to goods changes, so prices rise.

That's a nominal effect.

Real effect: we add money to an economy.

That changes people's behavior, rather than simply changing prices through the nominal effect of changing the ratio of money to goods.

Clear?

 

[bripat9643]

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?

- Can I quote a classical economist saying that? Sure, but I'm. On my phone at the moment. Are you serious that you didn't know this?

Maybe your need for education warrants some classes or something.

Prices are nominal.



I think I see the problem.

When we speak of nominal effects, we mean that real wealth is translated into money through an exchange rate. That's nominal.

That doesn't have any real effect, which would be something like changing people's decisions about production, the distribution of wealth, and so on.

I love the way you pretend you're some kind of expert on economics when you are obviously ignorant of the subject.

So you can't answer my question because you're "on the phone," but you can post the above?" Are you serious?

When you say "prices are nominal" you are using the following definition of "nominal:"

The distinction between real value and nominal value occurs in many fields. From a philosophical viewpoint, nominal value represents an accepted condition which is a goal or an approximation as opposed to the real value, which is always present. Often a "nominal" value is "de facto" rather than an exact, typical, or average measurement.​

In other words, the price is not the real value. Only someone totally clueless would make such a claim because there is no "true value" other than the market price. "True value" is a Marxist concept, not an economic concept.

I'm not sure what "real affect" you think a price is supposed to have other than the ones we always discuss in economics with is supply and demand. You have to be an ignoramus to believe supply and demand are not real effects.

It's pointless to even discuss this with you because your concepts are total gibberish and have nothing to do with real economics.

I just explained the difference between real effects and nominal effects.

Here's a nominal effect: we add money to the economy. The ratio of money to goods changes, so prices rise.

That's a nominal effect.

Real effect: we add money to an economy.

That changes people's behavior, rather than simply changing prices through the nominal effect of changing the ratio of money to goods.

Clear?

You're mistaken if you think inflation doesn't change people's behavior. It affects what they buy, how much they save and what they invest in.

What does it mean with regard to comparative advantage when you claim "prices are nominal?" Again, how do you calculate if you are better off if you don't consider the prices of the goods exchanged? What do you consider instead?

 

[PratchettFan]

Products come in nation, money leave nation...

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

Next; how prostitution persisted through the ages...

If money is more important than product, why do you give your money for products?

 

[Pksimon2007]

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?

- Can I quote a classical economist saying that? Sure, but I'm. On my phone at the moment. Are you serious that you didn't know this?

Maybe your need for education warrants some classes or something.

Prices are nominal.



I think I see the problem.

When we speak of nominal effects, we mean that real wealth is translated into money through an exchange rate. That's nominal.

That doesn't have any real effect, which would be something like changing people's decisions about production, the distribution of wealth, and so on.

I love the way you pretend you're some kind of expert on economics when you are obviously ignorant of the subject.

So you can't answer my question because you're "on the phone," but you can post the above?" Are you serious?

When you say "prices are nominal" you are using the following definition of "nominal:"

The distinction between real value and nominal value occurs in many fields. From a philosophical viewpoint, nominal value represents an accepted condition which is a goal or an approximation as opposed to the real value, which is always present. Often a "nominal" value is "de facto" rather than an exact, typical, or average measurement.​

In other words, the price is not the real value. Only someone totally clueless would make such a claim because there is no "true value" other than the market price. "True value" is a Marxist concept, not an economic concept.

I'm not sure what "real affect" you think a price is supposed to have other than the ones we always discuss in economics with is supply and demand. You have to be an ignoramus to believe supply and demand are not real effects.

It's pointless to even discuss this with you because your concepts are total gibberish and have nothing to do with real economics.

I just explained the difference between real effects and nominal effects.

Here's a nominal effect: we add money to the economy. The ratio of money to goods changes, so prices rise.

That's a nominal effect.

Real effect: we add money to an economy.

That changes people's behavior, rather than simply changing prices through the nominal effect of changing the ratio of money to goods.

Clear?

You're mistaken if you think inflation doesn't change people's behavior. It affects what they buy, how much they save and what they invest in.

What does it mean with regard to comparative advantage when you claim "prices are nominal?" Again, how do you calculate if you are better off if you don't consider the prices of the goods exchanged? What do you consider instead?

- I'm not expressing a personal opinion on the matter. I'm giving you definitions that are standard.

 

[bripat9643]

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

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?

- Can I quote a classical economist saying that? Sure, but I'm. On my phone at the moment. Are you serious that you didn't know this?

Maybe your need for education warrants some classes or something.

Prices are nominal.



I think I see the problem.

When we speak of nominal effects, we mean that real wealth is translated into money through an exchange rate. That's nominal.

That doesn't have any real effect, which would be something like changing people's decisions about production, the distribution of wealth, and so on.

I love the way you pretend you're some kind of expert on economics when you are obviously ignorant of the subject.

So you can't answer my question because you're "on the phone," but you can post the above?" Are you serious?

When you say "prices are nominal" you are using the following definition of "nominal:"

The distinction between real value and nominal value occurs in many fields. From a philosophical viewpoint, nominal value represents an accepted condition which is a goal or an approximation as opposed to the real value, which is always present. Often a "nominal" value is "de facto" rather than an exact, typical, or average measurement.​

In other words, the price is not the real value. Only someone totally clueless would make such a claim because there is no "true value" other than the market price. "True value" is a Marxist concept, not an economic concept.

I'm not sure what "real affect" you think a price is supposed to have other than the ones we always discuss in economics with is supply and demand. You have to be an ignoramus to believe supply and demand are not real effects.

It's pointless to even discuss this with you because your concepts are total gibberish and have nothing to do with real economics.

I just explained the difference between real effects and nominal effects.

Here's a nominal effect: we add money to the economy. The ratio of money to goods changes, so prices rise.

That's a nominal effect.

Real effect: we add money to an economy.

That changes people's behavior, rather than simply changing prices through the nominal effect of changing the ratio of money to goods.

Clear?

You're mistaken if you think inflation doesn't change people's behavior. It affects what they buy, how much they save and what they invest in.

What does it mean with regard to comparative advantage when you claim "prices are nominal?" Again, how do you calculate if you are better off if you don't consider the prices of the goods exchanged? What do you consider instead?

- I'm not expressing a personal opinion on the matter. I'm giving you definitions that are standard.

You asked a question and said not to consider price when the question can't be answered without considering price.

 

[Pksimon2007]

- Can I quote a classical economist saying that? Sure, but I'm. On my phone at the moment. Are you serious that you didn't know this?

Maybe your need for education warrants some classes or something.

Prices are nominal.



I think I see the problem.

When we speak of nominal effects, we mean that real wealth is translated into money through an exchange rate. That's nominal.

That doesn't have any real effect, which would be something like changing people's decisions about production, the distribution of wealth, and so on.

I love the way you pretend you're some kind of expert on economics when you are obviously ignorant of the subject.

So you can't answer my question because you're "on the phone," but you can post the above?" Are you serious?

When you say "prices are nominal" you are using the following definition of "nominal:"

The distinction between real value and nominal value occurs in many fields. From a philosophical viewpoint, nominal value represents an accepted condition which is a goal or an approximation as opposed to the real value, which is always present. Often a "nominal" value is "de facto" rather than an exact, typical, or average measurement.​

In other words, the price is not the real value. Only someone totally clueless would make such a claim because there is no "true value" other than the market price. "True value" is a Marxist concept, not an economic concept.

I'm not sure what "real affect" you think a price is supposed to have other than the ones we always discuss in economics with is supply and demand. You have to be an ignoramus to believe supply and demand are not real effects.

It's pointless to even discuss this with you because your concepts are total gibberish and have nothing to do with real economics.

I just explained the difference between real effects and nominal effects.

Here's a nominal effect: we add money to the economy. The ratio of money to goods changes, so prices rise.

That's a nominal effect.

Real effect: we add money to an economy.

That changes people's behavior, rather than simply changing prices through the nominal effect of changing the ratio of money to goods.

Clear?

You're mistaken if you think inflation doesn't change people's behavior. It affects what they buy, how much they save and what they invest in.

What does it mean with regard to comparative advantage when you claim "prices are nominal?" Again, how do you calculate if you are better off if you don't consider the prices of the goods exchanged? What do you consider instead?

- I'm not expressing a personal opinion on the matter. I'm giving you definitions that are standard.

You asked a question and said not to consider price when the question can't be answered without considering price.

Nowhere did I say not to consider price.

I asked about the effects in a monetary economy - if you did not understand what I meant, you could have asked.

 

[bripat9643]

I love the way you pretend you're some kind of expert on economics when you are obviously ignorant of the subject.

So you can't answer my question because you're "on the phone," but you can post the above?" Are you serious?

When you say "prices are nominal" you are using the following definition of "nominal:"

The distinction between real value and nominal value occurs in many fields. From a philosophical viewpoint, nominal value represents an accepted condition which is a goal or an approximation as opposed to the real value, which is always present. Often a "nominal" value is "de facto" rather than an exact, typical, or average measurement.​

In other words, the price is not the real value. Only someone totally clueless would make such a claim because there is no "true value" other than the market price. "True value" is a Marxist concept, not an economic concept.

I'm not sure what "real affect" you think a price is supposed to have other than the ones we always discuss in economics with is supply and demand. You have to be an ignoramus to believe supply and demand are not real effects.

It's pointless to even discuss this with you because your concepts are total gibberish and have nothing to do with real economics.

I just explained the difference between real effects and nominal effects.

Here's a nominal effect: we add money to the economy. The ratio of money to goods changes, so prices rise.

That's a nominal effect.

Real effect: we add money to an economy.

That changes people's behavior, rather than simply changing prices through the nominal effect of changing the ratio of money to goods.

Clear?

You're mistaken if you think inflation doesn't change people's behavior. It affects what they buy, how much they save and what they invest in.

What does it mean with regard to comparative advantage when you claim "prices are nominal?" Again, how do you calculate if you are better off if you don't consider the prices of the goods exchanged? What do you consider instead?

- I'm not expressing a personal opinion on the matter. I'm giving you definitions that are standard.

You asked a question and said not to consider price when the question can't be answered without considering price.

Nowhere did I say not to consider price.

I asked about the effects in a monetary economy - if you did not understand what I meant, you could have asked.

How would you consider the effects in your imaginary "non monetary" economy? That's the point. So what do you imagine are the effects in a "monetary economy?" When are you ever going to get around to explaining yourself?

 

[Pksimon2007]

I just explained the difference between real effects and nominal effects.

Here's a nominal effect: we add money to the economy. The ratio of money to goods changes, so prices rise.

That's a nominal effect.

Real effect: we add money to an economy.

That changes people's behavior, rather than simply changing prices through the nominal effect of changing the ratio of money to goods.

Clear?

You're mistaken if you think inflation doesn't change people's behavior. It affects what they buy, how much they save and what they invest in.

What does it mean with regard to comparative advantage when you claim "prices are nominal?" Again, how do you calculate if you are better off if you don't consider the prices of the goods exchanged? What do you consider instead?

- I'm not expressing a personal opinion on the matter. I'm giving you definitions that are standard.

You asked a question and said not to consider price when the question can't be answered without considering price.

Nowhere did I say not to consider price.

I asked about the effects in a monetary economy - if you did not understand what I meant, you could have asked.

How would you consider the effects in your imaginary "non monetary" economy? That's the point. So what do you imagine are the effects in a "monetary economy?" When are you ever going to get around to explaining yourself?

I'm not the one imagining a non-monetary economy. Pick up any mainstream textbook and read it.

When you get to the part where they talk about how prices rise with an increase in the money supply, and they don't explain how money is created, other than perhaps some blurb about it being created by a central bank which controls it's supply, you are reading about a nonmonetary economy - one I which money is nothing more than window dressing.

 

[PratchettFan]

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.

It really isn't one or the other. It is a balance of the two.

 

[bripat9643]

You're mistaken if you think inflation doesn't change people's behavior. It affects what they buy, how much they save and what they invest in.

What does it mean with regard to comparative advantage when you claim "prices are nominal?" Again, how do you calculate if you are better off if you don't consider the prices of the goods exchanged? What do you consider instead?

- I'm not expressing a personal opinion on the matter. I'm giving you definitions that are standard.

You asked a question and said not to consider price when the question can't be answered without considering price.

Nowhere did I say not to consider price.

I asked about the effects in a monetary economy - if you did not understand what I meant, you could have asked.

How would you consider the effects in your imaginary "non monetary" economy? That's the point. So what do you imagine are the effects in a "monetary economy?" When are you ever going to get around to explaining yourself?

I'm not the one imagining a non-monetary economy. Pick up any mainstream textbook and read it.

When you get to the part where they talk about how prices rise with an increase in the money supply, and they don't explain how money is created, other than perhaps some blurb about it being created by a central bank which controls it's supply, you are reading about a nonmonetary economy - one I which money is nothing more than window dressing.

Non-monetary economies exists only among stone age cultures. You're just trying to divert attention from your original post. It appears this conversation is at an end.

 

[Pksimon2007]

I just explained the difference between real effects and nominal effects.

Here's a nominal effect: we add money to the economy. The ratio of money to goods changes, so prices rise.

That's a nominal effect.

Real effect: we add money to an economy.

That changes people's behavior, rather than simply changing prices through the nominal effect of changing the ratio of money to goods.

Clear?

You're mistaken if you think inflation doesn't change people's behavior. It affects what they buy, how much they save and what they invest in.

What does it mean with regard to comparative advantage when you claim "prices are nominal?" Again, how do you calculate if you are better off if you don't consider the prices of the goods exchanged? What do you consider instead?

- I'm not expressing a personal opinion on the matter. I'm giving you definitions that are standard.

You asked a question and said not to consider price when the question can't be answered without considering price.

Nowhere did I say not to consider price.

I asked about the effects in a monetary economy - if you did not understand what I meant, you could have asked.

How would you consider the effects in your imaginary "non monetary" economy? That's the point. So what do you imagine are the effects in a "monetary economy?" When are you ever going to get around to explaining yourself?

- A monetary economy would be one in which, fundamentally, people produce goods for the purpose of saving money. Says Law is inside out - the cycle, rather than being C-M-C, is M-C-M'. Investment is not a matter of converting as many factors into goods as possible, with the desperate attempt to clear the shelves so that more may be produced, but a deliberate matter of calculation in which investors begin with money and the objective of making money. Production is merely a means to that end.

The decision to produce is, therefore, quite voluntary, and not a sure thing at all.

This denies Says Law, if you agree that this is how entreoreneurship works. If you believe that entrepreneurs are blindly motivated to produce, and willing to sell their resulting goods at any price the market will bear, then I think you live in a very unrealistic world.

That's the center of a monetary economy.

The nonmonetary economy is centered on the allocation of goods which people are inherently motivated to produce, because that's what people do.

The monetary economy is driven by decisions to invest for profit, which are optionally undertaken based on the potential of production projects to produce profits.

 

[bripat9643]

You're mistaken if you think inflation doesn't change people's behavior. It affects what they buy, how much they save and what they invest in.

What does it mean with regard to comparative advantage when you claim "prices are nominal?" Again, how do you calculate if you are better off if you don't consider the prices of the goods exchanged? What do you consider instead?

- I'm not expressing a personal opinion on the matter. I'm giving you definitions that are standard.

You asked a question and said not to consider price when the question can't be answered without considering price.

Nowhere did I say not to consider price.

I asked about the effects in a monetary economy - if you did not understand what I meant, you could have asked.

How would you consider the effects in your imaginary "non monetary" economy? That's the point. So what do you imagine are the effects in a "monetary economy?" When are you ever going to get around to explaining yourself?

- A monetary economy would be one in which, fundamentally, people produce goods for the purpose of saving money. Says Law is inside out - the cycle, rather than being C-M-C, is M-C-M'. Investment is not a matter of converting as many factors into goods as possible, with the desperate attempt to clear the shelves so that more may be produced, but a deliberate matter of calculation in which investors begin with money and the objective of making money. Oroduction is

People in all countries produce goods for the same reason: to make a living, to earn money. Some save more, and some save less. The difference doesn't make one a "non-monetary" economy. They still use money. The term "non-monetary" only makes sense as a label for an economy that doesn't use money - a strictly barter economy, in other words.

You're speaking gibberish because you have you're own special meanings for commonly understood terms.