Interested in economics? I have videos that cover the most common topics discussed in a principles of macroeconomics, principles of microeconomics, and intermediate microeconomics class. Dr. Azevedo
I have recently been creating videos for upper-level classes, but I have plans to create videos for the other chapter in Mankiw. Do you have a request for which chapters you would like to see videos for?
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. ru-vid.com/group/PLTjEimbqDkpBxcrJl6t8c_87B8zYmr4Mh
@@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.
It's the hour of valuable knowledge that made available for those who might not have chances. Thank you such generousity shared to students. Enjoyable and Valuable. Thank you.
At 26:48 when you calculate farmer and rancher’s wage, shouldn’t is be wage times 1/al = 2x 1/(1/4)= 8 and not 1/2 Likewise for ranchers wage = w x 1/(1/3)= 6x3 = 18
You are making a false assertion when you claim that the "nature of money has changed" when someone writes a check or uses a debit card, that is 100% false. You are conflating a means of payment, the transfer of a debt obligation (credit), for the medium of exchange, what is owed as payment (an asset, money). Checks as well as debit cards, credit cards, money orders, etc., are a means of payment, referred to as a generally accepted (institutional) arrangement or method that facilitates the delivery of money from one to another. Checks, debit cards, credit cards, money orders, etc. are not forms of money. There is no such thing as "fractional reserve lending", banks aren't sitting around waiting for people to deposit cash so they can make loans. That story has been debunked countless times by the Fed, the BoE, Standard & Poors, and by anyone who can read a bank balance sheet. And yes, Modern Money Machanics was proven to be a complete wortk of fiction. Banks don't need or use deposited money when generating loans. Deposit accounts are bank liabilities representing the account holder's legal claim to money, they are not money. Banks crediting and debiting user accounts (bank liabilities) in the amounts is not a form of money. There is no such thing as a digital or electronically transferrable dollar. carl-random-thoughts.blogspot.com/2016/02/money.html .
Omg..I have been struggling with my international econs course and I just happened to stumble across this channel today..Thank you man, God bless you and everything you do ❤️
Thank you so much for you videos, they took me through a lot of classes. Can’t wait to see your videos on The Cournot, Stackelberg and Bertrand models….truly thank you
