Comparative advantage and absolute advantage발음듣기
Comparative advantage and absolute advantage
What I want to do in this video is make sure we understand the difference between "comparative advantage" and absolute advantage".발음듣기
What we saw in the last video is that Patty had a comparative advantage in plates relative to Charlie because her opportunity cost of producing one plate was lower than Charlie's opportunity cost of producing a plate.발음듣기
Charlie on the other hand had a comparative advantage in cups; his opportunity cost for producing a cup was only a third of a plate, while Patty's was three plates.발음듣기
Absolute advantage in a given product just means that you are more productive at that thing given the same inputs.발음듣기
And so if I were to just give you this graph, and you didn't know how many workers Charlie or Patty had and how many inputs they're using to produce either thirty cups in a day or thirty plates in a day, you actually could not make any statement about absolute advantage.발음듣기
But if we assume that in all of these scenarios they have the same number of inputs, so if we think about plates . ..발음듣기
If we say they each have one employee, maybe it's themselves, and given that one input, or the same number of inputs, Patty is able to produce more plates than Charlie, then it is true that Patty would have an absolute advantage in plates.발음듣기
And if given the same number of inputs, Charlie is able to produce more cups than Patty, then he would have an absolute advantage in cups.발음듣기
Maybe Charlie needs a hundred people to produce his thirty cups, while Patty can produce ten cups with one person.발음듣기
So in that case, actually Patty would have an absolute advantage, but it just wouldn't be obvious from this right over here.발음듣기
But to make everything clear, I want to do a scenario where Charlie improved his productivity in some way and he actually has the absolute advantage in both products, and still show that as long as they have different comparative advantages, then it still makes sense for them to specialize.발음듣기
Cups and plates . . . and let's just put some more markers here...ten, twenty, thirty and forty.발음듣기
And ten, twenty, thirty and forty, and let's still put Patty, let's assume Patty hasn't changed, so this is her PPF, so that is Patty's PPF, just like that.발음듣기
So in a given day he can produce and let's just assume they're using the same number of inputs-so using the same number of inputs in a given day he can produce forty cups when Patty can only produce ten.발음듣기
Or, in the same given day using the same inputs, he could produce forty plates while Patty can only produce thirty.발음듣기
But we'll see it still makes sense for them to specialize because they have different comparative advantages; they have different opportunity costs.발음듣기
So we have all the same numbers for Patty - actually, let me copy and paste Patty's numbers right here.발음듣기
Actually we have access to her numbers right over here so I don't have to copy and paste it.발음듣기
Say he's sitting here - so he's producing 40 cups - what would be his opportunity cost of producing 40 plates?발음듣기
Now given this new reality - so we've already established Charlie has an absolute advantage in both.발음듣기
And remember, when you're talking about absolute advantage you have to think about the amount of inputs you use.발음듣기
Charlie's opportunity cost for producing a plate has improved, but it's still worse than Patty's.발음듣기
He has to spend one cup to make a plate, she only has to give up one-third of a cup to make a plate.발음듣기
And if we look at the opportunity cost in cups, the opportunity cost for Charlie to make 1 cup is 1 plate.발음듣기
So it's actually a little bit worse than it was before, but as we'll see it ends up being a good thing, he's just overall more productive.발음듣기
But his opportunity cost for one cup, he's giving up one plate now, when before he was producing one third of a plate.발음듣기
And that's because in the other scenario, he was more one-sided, I guess is one way to say it.발음듣기
So Charlie should still specialize in cups . . . and Patty should still specialize in plates.발음듣기
And to show that they can still get an outcome that is beyond even Charlie's Production Possibilities Frontier, let's think about how they could trade.발음듣기
So Charlie's going to specialize in cups; he's going to sit right over there producing forty cups a day.발음듣기
And Patty's going to specialize in plates, and she's going to sit right there let me use a different color, I don't want to use this color - she's going to sit right there and produce thirty plates a day.발음듣기
Well any trade that is - assuming that they don't want to have only plates or they don't only want to have cups.발음듣기
So she would be willing to trade anything less than three plates for a cup, assuming that she wants it.발음듣기
So let's say that Patty would be willing to trade one cup sorry, one plate - actually she'd be willing to trade two plates for one cup.발음듣기
She's be willing to trade that, because if she had to make the cups herself, she'd have to give up three plates for one cup.발음듣기
Now he would have to give away one cup for two plates, or he would have to give up half a cup for a plate.발음듣기
Either way, this is better than his opportunity cost of trying to get that incremental plate.발음듣기
And to see how that would improve, he could have forty cups or he could trade one of them away -발음듣기
So now he'll end up at this scenario over here, which was beyond, which was unattainable, when he was working by himself, when he didn't specialize and get gains from trade.발음듣기
He could, depending on how he trades, he could get outcomes, well up to a certain point, because Patty only has thirty cups.발음듣기
But if we look at the same scenario, Patty traded twenty plates for ten cups: where does that put her?발음듣기
So she traded twenty plates, so she's down ten plates but she got ten cups, so that put her right over here.발음듣기
칸아카데미 더보기더 보기
-
45문장 100%번역 좋아요0
번역하기 -
76문장 100%번역 좋아요1
번역하기 -
104문장 100%번역 좋아요3
번역하기 -
Sotheby's Returns Looted 10th Century Statue ...
13문장 100%번역 좋아요0
번역하기