Podcasts about Comparative advantage

Subscribe to David's Substack: Macroeconomic Policy Nexus Scott Lincicome is the vice president of general economics and trade at Cato. Scott returns to the program to discuss the past, present, and future of Trump's trade war, the impact of tariffs on the US consumer, myths about globalization, the state of globalization worldwide, and much more. Check out the transcript for this week's episode, now with links. Recorded on March 19th, 2025 Follow David Beckworth on X: @DavidBeckworth Follow Scott Lincicome on X: @ScottLincicome Follow the show on X: @Macro_Musings Check out our new AI chatbot: the Macro Musebot! Join the new Macro Musings Discord server! Join the Macro Musings mailing list! Check out our Macro Musings merch! Subscribe to David's new BTS YouTube Channel  Timestamps: (00:00:00) – Intro (00:01:01) – Cato's Trade Center (00:04:06) – Current State of Trump's Trade War (00:14:09) – Trade War Strategy (00:20:48) – Break in the Globalization Trend (00:29:51) – Bilateral Trade Deficit View (00:54:01) – Comparative Advantage (01:00:30) – How to Support Free Trade (001:01:44) – Outro  

Episode 464:  Last episode we discussed comparative advantage as it relates to the success of countries and corporations but the same concept applies to INDIVIDUALS.  The problem that most people have is not knowing what their comparative advantage is.  Should you pursue your passion or force yourself to get out of your comfort zone?  I believe the best path to personal success is to use your God given talents and abilities to relieve other's pain points. Sign up for free ALERTs & Market Commentary at:  https://www.investablewealth.com/subscribe/ ------------------------------------------------------

Episode 463: Ignore the contemporary arguments about free trade.  There is no free trade.  What there is, is government policies that attempt to distort market forces.  Tariffs are in the news, but deregulation will trump Trump's tariffs. In this episode we'll discuss how market forces are defined by comparative advantage.   And I'd encourage you to think about comparative advantage in terms of how you can benefit from it in terms of your investment portfolio, career and personal development. Sign up for free ALERTs & Market Commentary at:  https://www.investablewealth.com/subscribe/ ------------------------------------------------------

Trump imposes tariffs on Mexico, Canada, and China. Market turmoil, stock drops, rising dollar, higher consumer prices, and economic impacts.Upgrade your wardrobe instantly and save 20% off with the code Peter at https://www.publicrec.com/Control Body Odor ANYWHERE with Mando and get $5 off your Starter Pack (that's over 40% off) with promo GOLD at https://shopmando.comIn this episode, Peter Schiff breaks down the significant impact of Donald Trump's tariffs on the global markets and American consumers. Peter discusses the drastic fall in stock markets, with the Dow down nearly 600 points, and the surge in the dollar index. He explains how the tariffs are fundamentally taxes on Americans rather than on Mexican or Canadian businesses. Highlighting the effects on various sectors, particularly avocados and maple syrup imports, Peter underscores that the burden of these tariffs will ultimately fall on American consumers as prices rise across the board. He also delves into the broader economic implications, arguing that these tariffs could lead to higher consumer costs, weakened economic growth, and a potential recession. Throughout the episode, Peter emphasizes the shortsightedness of the belief that tariffs will benefit the U.S. economy and criticizes the lack of economic understanding among currency traders and the public.

Is free trade always good for workers? Gene Tunny explores the Stolper-Samuelson theorem, which shows how trade can lower wages for some while benefiting others. He discusses key economic insights from Wolfgang Stolper and Paul Samuelson, real-world historical examples, and the implications for today's global trade debates. If you have any questions, comments, or suggestions for Gene, please email him at contact@economicsexplored.com.Timestamps for EP272Introduction (0:00)Explanation of Comparative Advantage and Free Trade (1:50)Background on Wolfgang Stolper and Paul Samuelson (5:50)The Heckscher-Ohlin Model and Indirect Factor Arbitrage (16:37)Stolper-Samuelson Theorem and Its Implications (26:35)Empirical Evidence and Historical Applications (31:53)Conclusion and Future Directions (32:19)TakeawaysFree Trade Creates Winners and Losers – The Stolper-Samuelson theorem predicts that free trade benefits the owners of a country's relatively abundant factors (e.g., capitalists in capital-rich countries) but can harm the owners of relatively scarce factors (e.g., workers in industrialised economies).Economic Theory Still Favors Free Trade Overall – While trade can hurt specific groups, economists argue that overall national income rises, making it possible (though not always politically feasible) to compensate the losers.Historical Evidence Supports the Underlying Theory – Examples from 19th-century trade patterns show factor price convergence, with land rents rising in the U.S. while falling in Britain due to increased trade.Trade Policy Shapes Political Alliances – Farmers in land-rich nations like Australia and the USA often supported free trade, while industrial workers in capital-rich nations tended to favor protectionism.Links relevant to the conversationThe previous episode with Ian Fletcher:https://economicsexplored.com/2025/01/21/industrial-policy-vs-free-trade-w-ian-fletcher-coalition-for-a-prosperous-america-ep271/Stolper and Samuelson's 1941 paper “Protection and Real Wages”:https://academic.oup.com/restud/article-abstract/9/1/58/1588589William Bernstein's book “A Splendid Exchange: How Trade Shaped the World”:https://www.amazon.com.au/Splendid-Exchange-Trade-Shaped-World/dp/0802144160Roger Backhouse's book “Founder of Modern Economics: Paul A. Samuelson: Volume 1: Becoming Samuelson, 1915-1948”:https://www.amazon.com.au/Founder-Modern-Economics-Samuelson-1915-1948/dp/0190664096Edward Leamer's paper on the Hecksher-Ohlin model in theory and practice:https://ies.princeton.edu/pdf/S77.pdfLumo Coffee promotion10% of Lumo Coffee's Seriously Healthy Organic Coffee.Website: https://www.lumocoffee.com/10EXPLOREDPromo code: 10EXPLORED Full transcripts are available a few days after the episode is first published at www.economicsexplored.com.

Can the definition of privilege be nuanced enough to address the broad range of individual experiences and historical contexts? Does recognizing and discussing privilege lead to meaningful social change? Or does talk of privilege oversimplify complex issues? [00:00] Introduction and Welcome [00:14] Exploring the Privilege Walk [04:57] Discussion on Privilege and Comparative Advantage [17:05] Defining Privilege and Its Implications [22:31] Critiques and Counterarguments [28:54] Historical Gender Discrimination in Education [30:33] Men's Disadvantages and Social Perceptions [34:18] Privilege in Context: Examples and Critiques [38:31] Privilege Pedagogy and Its Implications [46:27] Supreme Court's Stance on Race-Based Admissions [52:13] Privilege and Individual Responsibility [56:25] Racial and Gender Criticism in Society [58:19] Concluding Thoughts

In response to Murphy's recent article on comparative advantage, economist Jorge Morales Meoqui objected that Murphy was continuing the same erroneous story about Adam Smith vs. David Ricardo. In this episode, Murphy clarifies what is right and wrong in Meoqui's own paper on the topic.Jorge Morales Meoqui's Article on Comparative Advantage: Mises.org/HAP471aThe Bob Murphy Show, Episode 352 on Comparative Advantage: Mises.org/HAP471bBob's Article, "The Beauty and Importance of Comparative Advantage": Mises.org/HAP471cThe Mises Institute is giving away 100,000 copies of Murray Rothbard's, What Has Government Done to Our Money? Get your free copy at Mises.org/HAPodFree

In response to Murphy's recent article on comparative advantage, economist Jorge Morales Meoqui objected that Murphy was continuing the same erroneous story about Adam Smith vs. David Ricardo. In this episode, Murphy clarifies what is right and wrong in Meoqui's own paper on the topic.Jorge Morales Meoqui's Article on Comparative Advantage: Mises.org/HAP471aThe Bob Murphy Show, Episode 352 on Comparative Advantage: Mises.org/HAP471bBob's Article, "The Beauty and Importance of Comparative Advantage": Mises.org/HAP471cThe Mises Institute is giving away 100,000 copies of Murray Rothbard's, What Has Government Done to Our Money? Get your free copy at Mises.org/HAPodFree

Bob goes solo to explain Adam Smith's absolute advantage versus David Ricardo's comparative advantage. This important concept underpins civilization itself.Mentioned in the Episode and Other Links of Interest:The infineo post on this numerical example.Bob's book Lessons for the Young Economist has a discussion of comparative advantage (see chapters 8 and 19).Help support the Bob Murphy Show.

Rory Brown, co-founder and CEO of Airhive, a British clean technology start-up, discusses carbon removal technology, why it is needed to support broader emissions reduction efforts globally and Canada's comparative advantage when it comes to direct air capture.This episode was made possible by Deep Sky and the generosity of listeners like you.The Hub Dialogues features The Hub's editor-at-large, Sean Speer, in conversation with leading entrepreneurs, policymakers, scholars, and thinkers on the issues and challenges that will shape Canada's future at home and abroad.If you like what you are hearing on Hub Dialogues consider subscribing to The Hub's free weekly email newsletter featuring our insights and analysis on key public policy issues. Sign up here: https://thehub.ca/join/. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Send us a Text Message.What's in a price? Good question. How can you be “enslaved” to something like a price, to something that doesn't eat, sleep, or breathe? Good question. What does it mean to wage a war against this inanimate enslaver? Good question. Join me today with Ryan Bourne, the R. Evan Scharf Chair for the Public Understanding of Economics at the Cato institute. Bourne paints a picture of a bloodless yet economically catastrophic war. It's one which leaves us vulnerable as the weapons of the market (dollars) diminish in our pockets (inflation) and the state of war (price controls) depletes the quality and quantity of our conquests (market interactions) until they are vastly inferior to the opposition's (free markets). Want to explore more?Russ Roberts, Where Do Prices Come From? at Econlib.Michael L. Davis, Price Gouging is Fine, but Humans are Better, at Econlib.Michael Munger on John Locke, Prices, and Hurricane Sandy, an EconTalk podcast.Rosolino Candela, Can Price Controls Fight Inflation? at Econlib.Michael Cannon on Prices and Health, a Great Antidote podcast.Never miss another AdamSmithWorks update.Follow us on Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram.

This week on Upstream, Erik is joined by Nathan Labenz and Noah Smith for a deep dive on how AI will impact job markets, the social contract, and the role of the government. Access global engineering without the headache and at a fraction of the cost: head to https://choosesquad.com and mention “Turpentine” to skip the waitlist. -- SPONSORS: SQUAD | BRAVE Squad:

In this episode, Noah Smith and Erik Torenberg are joined by Nathan Labenz, co-host of The Cognitive Revolution Podcast, to deep dive into AI's impact on our economy and society. They discuss how AI might affect the job market and society, drawing comparisons to past economic changes. If you're looking for an ERP platform head to NetSuite http://netsuite.com/102 and download your own customized KPI checklist. This show is produced by Turpentine: a network of podcasts, newsletters, and more, covering technology, business, and culture — all from the perspective of industry insiders and experts. We're launching new shows every week, and we're looking for industry-leading sponsors — if you think that might be you and your company, email us at erik@turpentine.co. - RECOMMENDED PODCAST: Sourcery by Molly O'Shea Sourcery by Molly O'Shea brings the conversations founders and investors have behind closed doors into the light. Subscribe for upcoming episodes with: Delian Asparouhov of Founders Fund and Varda Space, and Chris Power of Hadrian. Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/show/2Ni3Tese9CtZa3oxpCjgTg YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@SourceryVC/ - SPONSOR: NETSUITE NetSuite has 25 years of providing financial software for all your business needs. More than 36,000 businesses have already upgraded to NetSuite by Oracle, gaining visibility and control over their financials, inventory, HR, eCommerce, and more. If you're looking for an ERP platform head to NetSuite http://netsuite.com/102 and download your own customized KPI checklist. – Links: Noah Smith's Noahpinion https://www.noahpinion.blog The Cognitive Revolution podcast Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/show/6yHyok3M3BjqzR0VB5MSyk Apple: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/id1669813431 –  X / TWITTER: @labenz (Nathan) @noahpinion (Noah) @eriktorenberg (Erik) @TurpentineMedia (Turpentine) –   TIMESTAMPS (00:00) Intro (00:39) AI and the Future of Employment (03:48) The Intersection of AI, Robotics, and Biotech (04:53) Economic Disruption (06:33) Future of Jobs in an AI-Dominated World (08:22) AI's Impact on Economy (10:36) Pessimism Surrounding AI's Economic Impact (12:21) Comparative Advantage in the AI Era (14:02) AI Replacing Human Jobs (19:19) Sponsor: Netsuite (19:30) New Social Contract in the AI Era (34:21) Human Wages in an AI-Dominated Economy (39:31) Impact of AI on Job Market (41:40) Fear of AI Taking Over Human Jobs (47:47) Role of Government in AI Development (50:06) Potential Risks and Benefits of AI (53:14) Future of AI and Its Social Impact (58:45) Fear of Totalitarian States and AI (01:05:35) The Need for a Positive Vision for AI (01:11:18) Wrap

#ADAMSMITH: Is "cheaper" the same as "comparative advantage?"  David Henderson, Hover Institution https://www.econlib.org/did-adam-smith-anticipate-the-idea-of-comparative-advantage/ 1790 Adam Smith

Here, we discuss the theories of David Ricardo and Bertil Ohlin, two classical (bourgeois) economists who popularized conceptions of comparative advantage related to the international division of labor to justify imperialism. We discuss how Unequal Exchange theory rebukes these notions and reveals the imperialism of "comparative advantage" and trade.Texts we discussed: https://www.marxists.org/reference/subject/economics/ricardo/tax/ch07.htmhttps://books.google.com/books/about/Interregional_and_International_Trade.html?id=MU1CAAAAIAAJ --- Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/unequalexchange/support

When politicians decry the production that's done overseas, it's a good time to take stock of a most basic economic concept: comparative advantage. Don Boudreaux discusses what it means. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

How do we collectively ensure the continued development of UK financial architecture as a platform for the creation and support of new Islamic financial services and Halal economy-focused businesses? How does the UK build on its competitiveness as a global Islamic finance hub and a center for regulatory and legislative developments for Islamic fintech? How can Islamic finance in the UK help develop public/private sector funding for SMEs, start-ups and early-stage businesses? How do we encourage the expansion of core Islamic retail financial services, including extending savings options, pension and Takaful solutions, and student financing schemes? Would UK Islamic finance benefit from the development of specific alternative finance legislation, and if so, what form would this take? Would the sector benefit from a modified regulatory model with less capital constraints? Finally, how do we measure and evaluate tangible recent progress achieved by the UK Islamic financial services sector? We seek the views of an expert panel.Moderator: Vineeta Tan, Managing Editor and Director, Islamic Finance newsPanelists:Arshadur Rahman, Senior Manager, Bank of EnglandDr Mohamed Damak, Senior Director, Global Head of Islamic Finance, S&P Global RatingsSultan Choudhury, Advisory Board Member, Islamic Finance Council UKDr Usman Chaudry, Chief Risk Officer and Executive Director, Gatehouse BankZakky Bantan, Head of Funding, IsDB

China has recently launched the Global Development Initiative, Global Security Initiative and Global Civilization Initiative. What are China's objectives with these programmes and how should they be interpreted by the world? To understand this, we speak to Manoj Kewalramani, who is Fellow-China Studies and the Chairperson of the Indo-Pacific Studies Programme at the Takshashila Institution. चीन ने हाल में तीन बड़ी योजनाएँ घोषित की है - GDI, GSI और GCI ।  डेवलपमेंट, सुरक्षा और सभ्यता से जुड़े इन initiatives से चीन की मंशा क्या है ? भारत को उन्हें कैसे समझना चाहिए? इस विषय को समझने के लिए हमने बात की चीन पर एक्सपर्ट विश्लेषक मनोज केवलरामानी के साथ।  **** Further Reading ***** Manoj Kewalramani's substack | Tracking People's Daily  https://trackingpeoplesdaily.substack.com/p/pushing-gsi-and-gdi-xi-and-the-three The Economist | China's Global Development Initiative is not as innocent as it sounds https://www.economist.com/china/2022/06/09/chinas-global-development-initiative-is-not-as-innocent-as-it-sounds *** More Puliyabaazi on China ***** Taiwan: Cheen Ki Dukhti Rag ft. Sana Hashmi https://youtu.be/yiFXs8aYgTw Ep112 कोविड काल में चीन की राजनीति. China's Political Narratives on COVID-19 ft. Manoj Kewalramani https://youtu.be/Mx_lAnNfVZY चीन ने कैसे खेला इनोवेशन का खेल? How did China innovate? https://youtu.be/fhoL6awPvQQ ***************** Website: https://puliyabaazi.in Write to us at puliyabaazi@gmail.com  Hosts: @saurabhchandra @pranaykotas @thescribblebee  Puliyabaazi is on these platforms: Twitter: @puliyabaazi  Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/puliyabaazi/ Subscribe & listen to the podcast on iTunes, Google Podcasts, Castbox, AudioBoom, YouTube, Spotify or any other podcast app.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Zach Ehnstrom explores why coaches play kids at the positions they do.

In this episode I take a closer look at the concept of comparative advantage and how we can use it to think productively about polymathic skill acquisition.

Dr. Donald Boudreaux is an American economist, author and Senior Fellow of the F.A. Hayek Program on the American Economy and Globalization at the Mercatus Center at George Mason University. Dr. Boudreaux is a senior scholar at TFAS where he teaches Economics for the Citizen for TFAS D.C. Summer Programs. He has authored several books including "Globalization," "Hypocrites and Half-Wits," and "The Essential Hayek." In addition to teaching at TFAS and Mason, he previously taught legal studies and economics at Clemson University, served as an Olin Visiting Fellow in Law and Economics at the Cornell Law School and was president of the Foundation for Economic Education. Dr. Boudreaux earned his Ph.D. in economics from Auburn University and J.D. from the University of Virginia. In this week's Liberty + Leadership Podcast, Roger and Don discuss the basic foundations of economics, the public choice theory, how there are no solutions – only trade-offs – in economics, the comparative advantage of free trade, and why good journalism unfortunately makes bad economics.  The Liberty + Leadership Podcast is hosted by TFAS President Roger Ream and produced by kglobal. If you have a comment or question for the show, please drop us an email at podcast@TFAS.org.Support the show

Welcome to The Nonlinear Library, where we use Text-to-Speech software to convert the best writing from the Rationalist and EA communities into audio. This is: AI alignment researchers may have a comparative advantage in reducing s-risks, published by Lukas Gloor on February 15, 2023 on The Effective Altruism Forum. I believe AI alignment researchers might be uniquely well-positioned to make a difference to s-risks. In particular, I think this of alignment researchers with a keen interest in “macrostrategy.” By that, I mean ones who habitually engage in big-picture thinking related to the most pressing problems (like AI alignment and strategy), form mental models of how the future might unfold, and think through their work's paths to impact. (There's also a researcher profile where a person specializes in a specific problem area so much that they no longer have much interest in interdisciplinary work and issues of strategy – those researchers aren't the target audience of this post.) Of course, having the motivation to work on a specific topic is a significant component of having a comparative advantage (or lack thereof). Whether AI alignment researchers find themselves motivated to invest a portion of their time/attention into s-risk reduction will depend on several factors, including: Their opportunity costs Whether they think the work is sufficiently tractable Whether s-risks matter enough (compared to other practical priorities) given their normative views Whether they agree that they may have a community-wide comparative advantage Further below, I will say a few more things about these bullet points. In short, I believe that, for people with the right set of skills, reducing AI-related s-risks will become sufficiently tractable (if it isn't already) once we know more about what transformative AI will look like. (The rest depends on individual choices about prioritization.) Summary Suffering risks (or “s-risks”) are risks of events that bring about suffering in cosmically significant amounts. (“Significant” relative to our current expectation over future suffering.) (This post will focus on “directly AI-related s-risks,” as opposed to things like “future humans don't exhibit sufficient concern for other sentient minds.”) Early efforts to research s-risks were motivated in a peculiar way – morally “suffering-focused” EAs started working on s-risks not because they seemed particularly likely or tractable, but because of the theoretical potential for s-risks to vastly overshadow more immediate sources of suffering. Consequently, it seems a priori plausible that the people who've prioritzed s-risks thus far don't have much of a comparative advantage for researching object-level interventions against s-risks (apart from their high motivation inspired by their normative views). Indeed, this seems to be the case: I argue below that the most promising (object-level) ways to reduce s-risks often involve reasoning about the architectures or training processes of transformative AI systems, which involves skills that (at least historically) the s-risk community has not been specializing in all that much.[1] Taking a step back, one challenge for s-risk reduction is that s-risks would happen so far ahead in the future that we have only the most brittle of reasons to assume that we can foreseeably affect things for the better. Nonetheless, I believe we can tractably reduce s-risks by focusing on levers that stay identifiable across a broad range of possible futures. In particular, we can focus on the propensity of agents to preserve themselves and pursue their goals in a wide range of environments. By focusing our efforts on shaping the next generation(s) of influential agents (e.g., our AI successors), we can address some of the most significant risk factors for s-risks.[2] In particular: Install design principles like hyperexistential separation into the goal/decision architectures of transformative AI systems. Shape AI training env...

Borders and nation states can sometimes seek to divide communities -- but isn't that a bit like cutting water with a knife? Saaz Aggarwal joins Amit Varma in episode 308 of The Seen and the Unseen to discuss her work chronicling the history and culture of the Sindhi people -- and her own rich life as a writer and artist. (For full linked show notes, go to SeenUnseen.in.) Also check out: 1. Saaz Aggarwal on Amazon, Instagram, LinkedIn, Scroll, Open and her own website. 2. Sindh: Stories from a Vanished Homeland -- Saaz Aggarwal. 3. Sindhi Tapestry: Reflections on the Sindhi Identity -- Saaz Aggarwal. 4. The Amils of Sindh: A Narrative History of a Remarkable Community -- Saaz Aggarwal. 5. Losing Home: Finding Home -- Saaz Aggarwal, with illustrations by Subhodeep Mukherjee. 6. The Six Sigma Dabbawalas of Mumbai -- Samatvam Academy. 7. That Which is Seen, and That Which is Not Seen — Frédéric Bastiat. 8. Frédéric Bastiat's writings at Bastiat.org and Amazon. 9. Remembering Frédéric Bastiat (2007) — Amit Varma. 10. Autobiography of Malcolm X -- Malcolm X, as told to Alex Haley. 11. A Shot At History: My Obsessive Journey to Olympic Gold -- Abhinav Bindra with Rohit Brijnath. 12. Odyssey: My Journey Through Life -- Nandlal P Tolani with Saaz Aggarwal. 13. Veda Aggarwal's website. 14. Comparative Advantage. 15. Caste, Capitalism and Chandra Bhan Prasad -- Episode 296 of The Seen and the Unseen. 16. ‘Indian languages carry the legacy of caste' — Chandra Bhan Prasad interviewed by Sheela Bhatt. 17. The Loneliness of the Indian Woman — Episode 259 of The Seen and the Unseen (w Shrayana Bhattacharya). 18. Vipassana meditation at Dhamma.org. 19. India Moving — Chinmay Tumbe. 20. India = Migration — Episode 128 of The Seen and the Unseen (w Chinmay Tumbe). 21. Rekhta. 22. The Refreshing Audacity of Vinay Singhal — Episode 291 of The Seen and the Unseen. 23. Stage.in. 24. Nanak Was Here — Episode 166 of The Seen and the Unseen (w Amardeep Singh). 25. Songs of Kabir -- Kabit, translated by Arvind Krishna Mehrotra. 26. Doorway To Sindh -- Aruna Madnani's project. 27. In defence of suit, boot — Chandra Bhan Prasad. 28. The Good Lion -- Ernest Hemingway. 29. Episodes of The Seen and the Unseen with Ajay Shah: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8. 30. Eye Cosmetic ‘Surma': Hidden Threats of Lead Poisoning -- K Goswami, 31. Nandita Bhavnani on Amazon and YouTube. 32. Toba Tek Singh -- Sadat Hasan Manto. 33. Memories and Things — Episode 195 of The Seen and the Unseen (w Aanchal Malhotra). 34. Remnants of a Separation — Aanchal Malhotra. 35. Beyond the Rainbow -- Murli Melwani. 36. Kurt Vonnegut, Philip Roth, Douglas Adams, Leslie Thomas and PG Wodehouse on Amazon. Check out Amit's online course, The Art of Clear Writing. And subscribe to The India Uncut Newsletter. It's free! Episode art: ‘Tapestry' by Simahina. *** Errata: Contrary to what I said in the introduction to this episode, It was Saaz's mother and not Saaz who was born a Bijlani. Apologies! -- AV

Welcome to The Nonlinear Library, where we use Text-to-Speech software to convert the best writing from the Rationalist and EA communities into audio. This is: Comparative advantage does not mean doing the thing you're best at, published by Ben West on April 29, 2022 on The Effective Altruism Forum. This post is the first in a series I plan to write about management from an EA perspective, mostly oriented towards hiring. Feedback on which topics are useful to cover would be appreciated! TL;DR: Are you the best in the world at a specific task, such as optimising your company's database? This still might not be the highest impact thing for you to do! I sometimes talk to prospective employees of CEA who say something like: I am the best in the world at optimising my company's obscure proprietary database EA organisations don't need anyone to optimise this obscure proprietary database Therefore, I should use my “comparative advantage” and work at my current employer optimising their obscure proprietary database, and other people who have a comparative advantage at working at CEA should work there Comparative advantage is a useful concept, but it doesn't mean "everyone does the thing which they are best at in the world." If this were true, there would be only one chef in the world (the person who is best at being a chef), only one baker, one software engineer, etc. What this approach misses is that sometimes the world needs a 40th percentile graphic designer at an EA organisation more than a 99.999th percentile obscure-proprietary-database-optimizer at some other organisation. I am grateful to the candidates who apply to CEA and say something like “I want you to hire the best person for this position, and am totally happy if you would rather I continue to optimise my company's obscure proprietary database instead of working for you.” But the important thing is that these candidates apply to the position – unless you are the hiring manager for a position, you probably don't know what the labor pool is like, and therefore can't really use the theory of comparative advantage in a useful way. Appendix – technical argument The above is an informal argument. Using more technical terms: the mistake people are making is that they are looking only at labor supply, and not labor demand: From Wikipedia If you ignore demand, then you could indeed end up with a scenario where everyone supplies just what they are best able to supply. But that's not what the theory of comparative advantage actually tells you to do: you also need to know about demand. You are sometimes able to actually draw these curves: for example if you and a friend are both considering the same two jobs, and the two of you are the only candidates, and both jobs can only hire one of you. In this scenario, you and your friend should consider your comparative advantages. But this scenario is pretty rare, and in general I have found that the theory of comparative advantage leads people astray more frequently than it is helpful. 80,000 Hours has an article which discusses this in more depth. Lizka wrote a short story about Superman with a similar moral. I would like to thank Will Fenning, Caitlin Elizondo, Max Dalton, Yonatan Cale, Lizka Vaintrob, Jonathan Michel and JP Addison for comments on earlier drafts. I'm not sure if ignoring demand is even a coherent concept: the point of market equilibrium is that supply and demand have to balance. But hopefully you get what I'm pointing at. Note that I'm assuming the “price” here is denominated in something like “utility for the world” instead of dollars. Thanks for listening. To help us out with The Nonlinear Library or to learn more, please visit nonlinear.org.

Welcome to The Nonlinear Library, where we use Text-to-Speech software to convert the best writing from the Rationalist and EA communities into audio. This is: Have You Tried Hiring People?, published by rank-biserial on March 2, 2022 on LessWrong. The purpose of this post is to call attention to a comment thread that I think needs it. Wait, I thought EA already had 46$ billion they didn't know where to spend, so I should prioritize direct work over earning to give?/ I thought so too. This comment thread on ACX shattered that assumption of mine. EA institutions should hire people to do "direct work". If there aren't enough qualified people applying for these positions, and EA has 46 billion dollars, then their institutions should (get this) increase the salaries they offer until there are. To quote EY: There's this thing called "Ricardo's Law of Comparative Advantage". There's this idea called "professional specialization". There's this notion of "economies of scale". There's this concept of "gains from trade". The whole reason why we have money is to realize the tremendous gains possible from each of us doing what we do best. This is what grownups do. This is what you do when you want something to actually get done. You use money to employ full-time specialists. Excerpts From The ACX Thread:[1] Daniel Kokotajlo: For those trying to avert catastrophe, money isn't scarce, but researcher time/attention/priorities is. Even in my own special niche there are way too many projects to do and not enough time. I have to choose what to work on and credences about timelines make a difference. Daniel Kirmani: I don't get the "MIRI isn't bottlenecked by money" perspective. Isn't there a well-established way to turn money into smart-person-hours by paying smart people very high salaries to do stuff? Daniel Kokotajlo: My limited understanding is: It works in some domains but not others. If you have an easy-to-measure metric, you can pay people to make the metric go up, and this takes very little of your time. However, if what you care about is hard to measure / takes lots of time for you to measure (you have to read their report and fact-check it, for example, and listen to their arguments for why it matters) then it takes up a substantial amount of your time, and that's if they are just contractors who you don't owe anything more than the minimum to. I think another part of it is that people just aren't that motivated by money, amazingly. Consider: If the prospect of getting paid a six-figure salary to solve technical alignment problems worked to motivate lots of smart people to solve technical alignment problems... why hasn't that happened already? Why don't we get lots of applicants from people being like 'Yeah I don't really care about this stuff I think it's all sci-fi but check out this proof I just built, it extends MIRI's work on logical inductors in a way they'll find useful, gimme a job pls." I haven't heard of anything like that ever happening. (I mean, I guess the more realistic case of this is someone who deep down doesn't really care but on the exterior says they do. This does happen sometimes in my experience. But not very much, not yet, and also the kind of work these kind of people produce tends to be pretty mediocre.) Another part of it might be that the usefulness of research (and also manager/CEO stuff?) is heavy-tailed. The best people are 100x more productive than the 95th percentile people who are 10x more productive than the 90th percentile people who are 10x more productive than the 85th percentile people who are 10x more productive than the 80th percentile people who are infinitely more productive than the 75th percentile people who are infinitely more productive than the 70th percentile people who are worse than useless. Or something like that. Anyhow it's a mystery to me too and I'd like to learn more about it. The phenomenon is definitely real but I don't really understand the underlying causes. Melvin: Consid...

Link to original articleWelcome to The Nonlinear Library, where we use Text-to-Speech software to convert the best writing from the Rationalist and EA communities into audio. This is: Have You Tried Hiring People?, published by rank-biserial on March 2, 2022 on LessWrong. The purpose of this post is to call attention to a comment thread that I think needs it. Wait, I thought EA already had 46$ billion they didn't know where to spend, so I should prioritize direct work over earning to give?/ I thought so too. This comment thread on ACX shattered that assumption of mine. EA institutions should hire people to do "direct work". If there aren't enough qualified people applying for these positions, and EA has 46 billion dollars, then their institutions should (get this) increase the salaries they offer until there are. To quote EY: There's this thing called "Ricardo's Law of Comparative Advantage". There's this idea called "professional specialization". There's this notion of "economies of scale". There's this concept of "gains from trade". The whole reason why we have money is to realize the tremendous gains possible from each of us doing what we do best. This is what grownups do. This is what you do when you want something to actually get done. You use money to employ full-time specialists. Excerpts From The ACX Thread:[1] Daniel Kokotajlo: For those trying to avert catastrophe, money isn't scarce, but researcher time/attention/priorities is. Even in my own special niche there are way too many projects to do and not enough time. I have to choose what to work on and credences about timelines make a difference. Daniel Kirmani: I don't get the "MIRI isn't bottlenecked by money" perspective. Isn't there a well-established way to turn money into smart-person-hours by paying smart people very high salaries to do stuff? Daniel Kokotajlo: My limited understanding is: It works in some domains but not others. If you have an easy-to-measure metric, you can pay people to make the metric go up, and this takes very little of your time. However, if what you care about is hard to measure / takes lots of time for you to measure (you have to read their report and fact-check it, for example, and listen to their arguments for why it matters) then it takes up a substantial amount of your time, and that's if they are just contractors who you don't owe anything more than the minimum to. I think another part of it is that people just aren't that motivated by money, amazingly. Consider: If the prospect of getting paid a six-figure salary to solve technical alignment problems worked to motivate lots of smart people to solve technical alignment problems... why hasn't that happened already? Why don't we get lots of applicants from people being like 'Yeah I don't really care about this stuff I think it's all sci-fi but check out this proof I just built, it extends MIRI's work on logical inductors in a way they'll find useful, gimme a job pls." I haven't heard of anything like that ever happening. (I mean, I guess the more realistic case of this is someone who deep down doesn't really care but on the exterior says they do. This does happen sometimes in my experience. But not very much, not yet, and also the kind of work these kind of people produce tends to be pretty mediocre.) Another part of it might be that the usefulness of research (and also manager/CEO stuff?) is heavy-tailed. The best people are 100x more productive than the 95th percentile people who are 10x more productive than the 90th percentile people who are 10x more productive than the 85th percentile people who are 10x more productive than the 80th percentile people who are infinitely more productive than the 75th percentile people who are infinitely more productive than the 70th percentile people who are worse than useless. Or something like that. Anyhow it's a mystery to me too and I'd like to learn more about it. The phenomenon is definitely real but I don't really understand the underlying causes. Melvin: Consid...

Welcome to The Nonlinear Library, where we use Text-to-Speech software to convert the best writing from the Rationalist and EA communities into audio. This is: Money: The Unit of Caring, published by Eliezer Yudkowsky on the LessWrong. Steve Omohundro has suggested a folk theorem to the effect that, within the interior of any approximately rational, self-modifying agent, the marginal benefit of investing additional resources in anything ought to be about equal. Or, to put it a bit more exactly, shifting a unit of resource between any two tasks should produce no increase in expected utility, relative to the agent's utility function and its probabilistic expectations about its own algorithms. This resource balance principle implies that—over a very wide range of approximately rational systems, including even the interior of a self-modifying mind—there will exist some common currency of expected utilons, by which everything worth doing can be measured. In our society, this common currency of expected utilons is called "money". It is the measure of how much society cares about something. This is a brutal yet obvious point, which many are motivated to deny. With this audience, I hope, I can simply state it and move on. It's not as if you thought "society" was intelligent, benevolent, and sane up until this point, right? I say this to make a certain point held in common across many good causes. Any charitable institution you've ever had a kind word for, certainly wishes you would appreciate this point, whether or not they've ever said anything out loud. For I have listened to others in the nonprofit world, and I know that I am not speaking only for myself here... Many people, when they see something that they think is worth doing, would like to volunteer a few hours of spare time, or maybe mail in a five-year-old laptop and some canned goods, or walk in a march somewhere, but at any rate, not spend money. Believe me, I understand the feeling. Every time I spend money I feel like I'm losing hit points. That's the problem with having a unified quantity describing your net worth: Seeing that number go down is not a pleasant feeling, even though it has to fluctuate in the ordinary course of your existence. There ought to be a fun-theoretic principle against it. But, well... There is this very, very old puzzle/observation in economics about the lawyer who spends an hour volunteering at the soup kitchen, instead of working an extra hour and donating the money to hire someone to work for five hours at the soup kitchen. There's this thing called "Ricardo's Law of Comparative Advantage". There's this idea called "professional specialization". There's this notion of "economies of scale". There's this concept of "gains from trade". The whole reason why we have money is to realize the tremendous gains possible from each of us doing what we do best. This is what grownups do. This is what you do when you want something to actually get done. You use money to employ full-time specialists. Yes, people are sometimes limited in their ability to trade time for money (underemployed), so that it is better for them if they can directly donate that which they would usually trade for money. If the soup kitchen needed a lawyer, and the lawyer donated a large contiguous high-priority block of lawyering, then that sort of volunteering makes sense—that's the same specialized capability the lawyer ordinarily trades for money. But "volunteering" just one hour of legal work, constantly delayed, spread across three weeks in casual minutes between other jobs? This is not the way something gets done when anyone actually cares about it, or to state it near-equivalently, when money is involved. To the extent that individuals fail to grasp this principle on a gut level, they may think that the use of money is somehow optional in the pursuit of things that merely seem morally desirable—as opposed to tasks like feeding ourselves, whose desirability seems to be treated ...

Welcome to The Nonlinear Library, where we use Text-to-Speech software to convert the best writing from the Rationalist and EA communities into audio. This is: Comparative advantage and when to blow up your island, published by dynomight on the LessWrong. This is a linkpost for/ Economists say free trade is good because of "comparative advantage". But what is comparative advantage? Why is it good? Thanks for listening. To help us out with The Nonlinear Library or to learn more, please visit nonlinear.org.

   What's the difference between your competitive advantage and your comparative advantage? Plus, does the praiseworthy woman of Proverbs 31 have something to teach us about business?  Hannah Stolze—one of our keynote speakers at the October 28 Business On Purpose conference—delves  into these questions and discusses her new book, Wisdom-Based Business in this episode.  We […]

Melvyn Bragg and guests discuss one of the most influential economists from the age of Adam Smith and Thomas Malthus. Ricardo (1772 -1823) reputedly made his fortune at the Battle of Waterloo, and he made his lasting impact with his ideas on free trade. At a time when nations preferred to be self-sufficient, to produce all their own food and manufacture their own goods, and to find markets for export rather than import, Ricardo argued for free trade even with rivals for the benefit of all. He contended that existing economic policy unduly favoured landlords above all others and needed to change, and that nations would be less likely to go to war with their trading partners if they were more reliant on each other. For the last two hundred years, Ricardo’s Theory of Comparative Advantage in support of free trade has been developed and reinterpreted by generations of economists across the political spectrum. With Matthew Watson Professor of Political Economy at the University of Warwick Helen Paul Lecturer in Economics and Economic History at the University of Southampton And Richard Whatmore Professor of Modern History at the University of St Andrews and Co-Director of the St Andrews Institute of Intellectual History Producer: Simon Tillotson

Melvyn Bragg and guests discuss one of the most influential economists from the age of Adam Smith and Thomas Malthus. Ricardo (1772 -1823) reputedly made his fortune at the Battle of Waterloo, and he made his lasting impact with his ideas on free trade. At a time when nations preferred to be self-sufficient, to produce all their own food and manufacture their own goods, and to find markets for export rather than import, Ricardo argued for free trade even with rivals for the benefit of all. He contended that existing economic policy unduly favoured landlords above all others and needed to change, and that nations would be less likely to go to war with their trading partners if they were more reliant on each other. For the last two hundred years, Ricardo’s Theory of Comparative Advantage in support of free trade has been developed and reinterpreted by generations of economists across the political spectrum. With Matthew Watson Professor of Political Economy at the University of Warwick Helen Paul Lecturer in Economics and Economic History at the University of Southampton And Richard Whatmore Professor of Modern History at the University of St Andrews and Co-Director of the St Andrews Institute of Intellectual History Producer: Simon Tillotson

Season 8: Theory of Comparative Advantage by David Ricardo When Nations have multiple absolute advantages they still trade in what they are most efficient at. This Theory is close to current reality as Nations do have multiple areas of advantage. We discuss this scenario of trade in this podcast.  AtyaasaaOnline is an E-learning portal that people can preview and learn for free. You can also visit Niket Karajagi's body of knowledge on his Virtual Coaching Portal https://niketkarajagi.com.AtyaasaaOnline Tech-Enabled Borderless Organization Development Portal

Trying to fit in while growing up is difficult for every child, let alone a child that has a physical disability. The bullying that can come from growing up with a disability can cause immense insecurities. It’s important for people with disabilities to recognize the beauty in their differences. My guest today, Johannes Atlas, describes himself as a “man who is here to serve”. Johannes is a national speaker and founder of the organization Speaking To The You In You. He was born with a physical disability - Poland syndrome - and after growing up trying to hide his differences, Johannes recognized that his abnormality became his greatest strength. After overcoming his own insecurities, Johannes’s work consists of setting free those who are dealing with emotional baggage and end the chains that limit them. Tune in to Episode 66 of Rejuvenaging, to learn Johannes’s journey to overcoming his disability, how a growth mindset is possible at any stage in life, and what is next for his career. Some Questions I Ask What do you mean when you speak of baggage? (3:35)Do other people look at your disability as not as big of a deal as you did? (11:24)What is Speaking To The You In You? (18:01)In This Episode You Will Learn How Johannes overcame his insecurities about his disability (8:16)Johannes’s advice for parents who have a child with a disability (14:11)That anyone at any age can continue to grow and learn (16:42)About Johannes’s upcoming YouTube series (19:15)That the starting point of growth is awareness (22:12)Connect with Johannes Facebook Instagram LinkedIn Useful Rejuvenaging Resources:Website: https://www.thementalhealthgym.com/Book: Dr. Ron Kaiser -Rejuvenaging: The Art and Science of Growing Older with EnthusiasmEmail: ron.kaiser@thementalhealthgym.comTEDx Talk: Aging Enthusiastically to Make the World a Better Place See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

Free trade, fair trade, protectionism, What is trade good for?

And here comes the fourth episode! In this episode, I discuss why trade is important and what is the law of comparative advantage which states that countries engaging in trade benefit even when one country is better at doing everything. Happy listening! Reference Materials: 1. Comparative Advantage Theory and Examples by Kimberly Amadeo 2. A Brief History of the Concept of Comparative Advantage by Morgan Rose 3. On the Principles of Political Economy and Taxation by David Ricardo 4. An Inquiry Into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations by Adam Smith

PDVA, Venezuela's domestic oil producer needs markets to address the corrupt politics of Marxism.

In this episode, we explore the background of free trade, the US-China trade war itself, and why tariffs are a bad idea.Please subscribe and leave a 5-star review. Thank you!***References:‘Trumponomics: Inside the America First Plan to Revive Our Economy’, Stephen Moore and Arthur B. Laffer, 2018, All Points Books, United States.‘Schism: China, America and the Fracturing of the Global Trading System’, Paul Blustein, 2019, Centre for International Governance Innovation, Canada.‘An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations’, Adam Smith, Abridged with Commentary by Laurence Dickey, 1993, Hackett Publishing Company, Indianapolis/Cambridge.‘On the Principles of Political Economy and Taxation’, David Ricardo, 1817, republished in 2001, Batoche Books, Kitchener.‘Comparative Advantage’, Investopedia.‘International Trade’, Britannica.‘How Trump's Trade War Went From Method to Madness’, Bloomberg, YouTube.‘A Quick Guide to the US-China Trade War’, BBC.‘US-China trade war: 'We're all paying for this', Virginia Harrison, BBC.‘China tariffs will still cost US $316 billion by end of 2020, even after trade deal’, Gina Heeb, Business Insider.‘The US-China Trade War: A Timeline’, Dorcas Wong & Alexander Chipman Koty, China Briefing.‘I, Pencil: My Family Tree as Told to Leonard E. Read’, Leonard Read, republished by Foundation for Economic Education. ‘Economists Actually Agree on This: The Wisdom of Free Trade’, N. Gregory Mankiw, New York Times.The World Trade Historical Database, Giovanni Federico & Antonio Tena-Junguito, VOXeu.org.‘Shooting an Elephant’, The Economist, September 17, 2016.‘Steve Lamar: Announced phase 1 trade deal gave retailers limited relief’, CNBC, YouTube.‘The U.S. Trade Deficit Is Narrowing for Reasons That Aren’t All Good’, Shawn Donnan, Bloomberg.‘Trade War From The Chinese Side’, Milton Ezrati, Forbes.‘How China Really Sees the Trade War’, Andrew J. Nathan, Foreign Affairs.‘The U.S. Trade War Has Caught Beijing’s Attention. Now Washington Needs a Longer-Term Plan.’, Tim Roemer, Foreign Policy.‘David Autor on Trade, China, and U.S. Labor Markets’, Econ Talk Podcast.‘Donald Trump accuses China of trade 'rape'’, The Telegraph, YouTube.‘Donald Trump FULL Speech | Toledo, Ohio Rally (10/27/2016)’, ABC News, YouTube.‘Trump vs Friedman - Trade Policy Debate’, LibertyPen, YouTube.‘Milton Friedman - Congressional House Economic Task Force (1993)’, BasicEconomics, YouTube.‘Krugman Says U.S. Not Taken Advantage of in Trade Deals’, Bloomberg Politics, YouTube.‘Don Boudreaux - Why Free Trade is ALWAYS Best Policy’, LibertyPen, YouTube.‘Trade wars are easy to start, very hard to stop: Economist Thomas Sowell’, Fox Business, YouTube.‘Milton Friedman - Free Trade’, BasicEconomics, YouTube.***Music: Julian AngelatosArtwork: Nerpa Mate

Podcast Notes Key Takeaways Keith credits his success to the basics: Early-morning exercise, proper sleep, and reading for ~1 hour a dayIf you’re going to succeed as a startup, you need to be able to find and hire undiscovered talent“If you’re going to attract people with extremely high potential, the first thing you have to do is let them thrive. You have to give them the degrees of freedom to do both what they can do very well, and to some extent, allow them to make mistakes.” – Keith Rabois“If you try to constrain really talented people, you’re only going to create a mirror of yourself with your same strengths and weaknesses. You HAVE to let people do stuff that you disagree with. You can’t tell how good they are if they’re just replicating what you’d have them do.”If you’re tenacious (relentlessly resourceful), smart, and a magnet for talent, your odds of achieving success are greatly magnified“To be successful in an efficient market, you need to figure out what your comparative advantage is and magnify it” – Keith RaboisRead the full notes @ podcastnotes.orgKeith Rabois is a Silicon Valley legend known for discovering and cultivating talent that has gone on to create companies such as YouTube, Lyft, Airbnb, Quora and many more. Keith is a general partner at Founders Fund and also founded Open-door which transforms the process of buying and selling a home. Keith has a unique and unparalleled track record as an entrepreneur, executive and investor. Keith began his career in the industry as a senior executive at PayPal and subsequently served in influential roles at LinkedIn, and as Chief Operating Officer of Square. On this episode Keith discusses working with greats such as Peter Thiel and Reid Hoffman, finding undiscovered talent and the mental frameworks he uses! Checkout my Newsletter Connect with us! Whatgotyouthere Exclusive opportunities: http://whatgotyouthere.com/sponsors/ MCTco Collagen Protein Bars www.mctco.com 20% off with code “WGYT” https://twitter.com/rabois https://foundersfund.com/team/keith-rabois/

Keith Rabois is a Silicon Valley legend known for discovering and cultivating talent that has gone on to create companies such as YouTube, Lyft, Airbnb, Quora and many more. Keith is a general partner at Founders Fund and also founded Open-door which transforms the process of buying and selling a home. Keith has a unique and unparalleled track record as an entrepreneur, executive and investor. Keith began his career in the industry as a senior executive at PayPal and subsequently served in influential roles at LinkedIn, and as Chief Operating Officer of Square. On this episode Keith discusses working with greats such as Peter Thiel and Reid Hoffman, finding undiscovered talent and the mental frameworks he uses! Checkout my Newsletter Connect with us! Whatgotyouthere Exclusive opportunities: http://whatgotyouthere.com/sponsors/ MCTco Collagen Protein Bars www.mctco.com 20% off with code “WGYT” https://twitter.com/rabois https://foundersfund.com/team/keith-rabois/

Economists predict GDP growth by looking at business investment, government and consumer spending, plus the net level of exports. In the long term, of course, growth only comes from the products and services you sell and for that the Atlas of Economic Complexity, developed by Harvard University, is a powerful tool. It demonstrates how growth comes to countries with a highly complex mix of products for export – the less complex, the less the growth potential. As Prof Steve Keen says to Phil Dobbie in this week's Debunking Economics podcast, it is the exact opposite of Ricardo's argument of Comparative Advantage. Our GDPR privacy policy was updated on August 8, 2022. Visit acast.com/privacy for more information.

Economists predict GDP growth by looking at business investment, government and consumer spending, plus the net level of exports. In the long term, of course, growth only comes from the products and services you sell and for that the Atlas of Economic Complexity, developed by Harvard University, is a powerful tool. It demonstrates how growth comes to countries with a highly complex mix of products for export – the less complex, the less the growth potential. As Prof Steve Keen says to Phil Dobbie in this week’s Debunking Economics podcast, it is the exact opposite of Ricardo’s argument of Comparative Advantage. To hear the full version subscribe by picking a plan in the right column of the Debunking Economics website (not the mobile app). Or become a patron at https://www.patreon.com/ProfSteveKeen

Welcome to Finance and Fury, The Furious Friday edition Continuing SDGs – today we are covering Economics or SDG 8 First, look at the economics of the UN itself – something never talked about Who pays for the UN – Member states - A complex formula - US pays most at 22%-28% of the UN's different budgets Aus - Regular budget for AUD - $86m (rough estimate) in 2016 - $58m USD – not too much But the official budget doesn’t include other donations – Gov agency voluntary contributions (specified or unspecified) – all revenues from government donors – Total was $747m p.a. USD ($1.1bn) – across 21 UN organisations A lot of money being shipped to UN when we have a desperate need to more infrastructure and helping create more liveable areas outside of Cities – Up from $601m in 2014 – massively increased - UN revenues massively increased – What does the UN spend money on? 2016, the organisation's total expenditures was nearly $50 billion, with the US financing about $10 billion, or one fifth, of that. Even with costs surging fourfold in the last 20 years – expenditures have been compounding at 7.8% p.a. since 1976 UN plans - Economic growth and decent work – SDG 8 Promote sustained, inclusive and sustainable economic growth, full and productive employment and decent work for all. World Pensions Council (WPC) development economists have argued that the twin considerations of long-term economic growth and infrastructure investment weren’t prioritized enough – Plan is growth through full employment on infrastructure projections 2020 Target - to reduce youth unemployment and operationalise a global strategy for youth employment. Implementing the Global Jobs Pact of the International Labour Organization is also mentioned. 2030 target - to establish policies for sustainable tourism that will create jobs. Strengthening domestic financial institutions and increasing Aid for Trade support for developing countries is considered essential to economic development (not for us though, but other nations). Implementing an Enhanced Integrated Framework for Trade-Related Technical Assistance to Least Developed Countries is their method for achieving sustainable economic development UN say that $5trn a year is needed – mobilise a lot more than currently being spent – essentially mass redistribution   At this economic model’s core - Global redistribution of GDP – push out lower-paying jobs to be outsourced by AI or by globalisation Built around David Ricardo's Comparative advantage theory from 1817 – Spent 4.5y doing Commerce – Finance also Economics – International Trade and Finance – Knew the right answers on the tests – That comparative advantage should benefit both parties if done right How the theory works – which argued that countries should specialise in the production of goods in which they have a relative advantage over other countries in production - promoting benefits of international trade Example – Back then a mutual trade benefit would be realised between China and the United Kingdom from China specialising in the production of porcelain and tea and the United Kingdom concentrating on machine parts. Makes sense right? In the 90s China for low wages in manufacturing/production and west for Service-based economy But what the theory doesn’t account for – Not 1817 – Capital (money) is easy to transfer across borders – Technology as well – With Capital comes technology (FDI) – China as an example – FDI and increase in tech – outproduce across board – but slowly wages rise in china – so do costs – so production leapfrogs to another country with lower wages – so previous country stagnates in wages and growth – then new country goes through the same cycle - so on – race to the bottom – takes a while – Has been happening since 1975 – Lima Accord – set the framework for the movement of capital and technology to developing nations – which are the labour cost in comparative countries Modern Robin Hood – But you are the rich when compared to the third world UN has engineered the decline of the Comparative Advantage efficiency – simply a beggar thy neighbour policy now that creates downward pressures on wages globally – Name of Globalism The offshoring of jobs has reduced Australian (USA, UK, other 1st world nations) manufacturing and industrial capability and associated innovation, research, development, supply chains, consumer purchasing power, and tax base of state and local governments – technology comes from engineering and not science (especially climate science) Comparative advantage Creates a Focus of Multi-national companies on short-term profits at the expense of these long-term costs – Effect of moving our economies to the developing world Currency and taxes come into this – Today Media calling tariffs a trade war - There is no trade war – simply the US trying to protect their industries by placing tariff barriers on the import of cheaper products from foreign countries The irony is half of the imports from China are imports from US companies – US at war with US companies – go figure Evident that our economies are in decline – GDP growth slowing as over decades our manufacturing/industrial/engineering capability has been transferred abroad. Our demise is what is fuelling countries like China - owes it faster than expected rise as a world power to the transfer of jobs, capital, technology, and business know-how to China Jobs have been declining for years in terms of value-added and pay – creates aggregate demand decline (lower GDP growth) Proof from listed companies using profits not for investment in new plant and equipment, but to buy back their own shares or make once-off dividend payments Economic growth comes from a rising labour force participation rate and engineering innovation – More people earning more money – better productivity than more money on top - Governments tried Aggregate demand model of redistribution (UBI proposed) – more likely Government work programs (infrastructure projects) – Gov projects force minimum wages – offer $15 in USA – employees have to now compete with gov – unfair as they are contributing through taxes to fund their own demise – What if the work isn’t worth $15 USA an hour? In USA – offer insurances and benefits – making it even harder for small businesses to complete But this wage capped and unaffordable –has to come from taxes – and would also be taxed – making it an inefficient redistribution – but does increase size and importance/reliance on Gov Perfect socialist world we would all get $100k p.a. for not working – but resources aren’t infinite As costs of labour increase in developing countries (i.e. china wage rises) – to maximise profits – wage regulations in developed countries further compound the decline in employment and wages Which is where it gets worse when combined with the implementation of recommended policies within the higher labour cost countries Decent work – the work that is funded by the Gov- limits free-market choices when Government competes – Almost like having a Communist Nation and fee market operating at the same time -   From the club of Rome – Watched their online lectures – available on the LinkedIn learning centres – not hiding it – just have to look Shorten the length of the work year and raise the retirement ages Redefine ‘paid work’ to cover those who care for others at home and Increase unemployment benefits Increase the taxation to redistribute profits – introduce death taxes Tax fossil energy to make low-carbon energy more competitive – higher prices (no different to tariffs) Shift taxes from employment to emissions and resource Increase death taxes to reduce inequality and philanthropy while boosting government income Expand the use of green stimulus packages by printing money or raising taxes to help governments respond to climate change and the need for redistribution Encourage unionization and restrict trade and business where necessary   With no employment or wage growth – where will growth come from? Same as last 30 years - Mostly debt – Some UN current donations from Governments – Also have infrastructure spending access from Supers, tax – next ep Mostly debt fuel growth through massive government infrastructure spending – employ people in the employment plans at higher than market wages with insurances and benefits (higher super counts) – all at additional costs to Gov budgets Plus more and more regulation – John Stossel did a great interview with entrepreneurs in Africa – Inequality they face is competition from the West through free stuff (can't compete with free) and Government regulations – which leads to corruption – only way to get things done is through bribes or having millions to get around regulations/paying the fines The whole of Economic growth in 21st century is expansion through Government spending and debt – cheap credit but consumer income has not kept pace and consumer debt expansion has reached its limits – at 120%   The core is to try and keep the debt-based economy going – IMF SDRs spending massive amounts of money on the next great social program – some referred to it as the great leap forward – create higher inflation again, then inflate the current debts away over time – also is the next step in a one-world currency – if they gain legitimacy and become the global reserve currency like China and Russia want Governments try to increase asset prices through printing money But this doesn’t increase production, as jobs and economic activity don’t exist anymore Just makes the property and other assets more expensive for us – while pushing up costs of living Next is to drive growth through reindustrialisation – global infrastructure works and climate change action – Growth driven by debt – FDR style – Great Society programs of mass Gov employment – at expense of population and companies paying for those wages – Gov spending comes form you or borrowing in your name Last next part is to merge Governments and companies – Fascism 101 – but only approved companies – create a completely controlled economy Through the consumption and production outlines in the circular economy Take away – Governments have proved to only be economic destruction houses – long history of getting it wrong and creating economic decline slowly over time with equilibrium policies – So why give them even more control and power over the economy and our lives? Other take away – Policies to fuel world GDP growth through more ‘beggar they neighbour’ policy – Take advantage through investing in Asian/developing markets and infrastructure companies – more on this next Friday   Thanks for listening – Next week – go through infrastructures and the inequality angle  If you want to get in contact, you can here.   UN Revenue by Gov data – https://www.unsystem.org/content/FS-D00-02 https://www.unsystem.org/content/FS-D03-01

The market tumbled yesterday after Donald Trump threatened to double down on tariffs. Heaton explains Comparative Advantage with a brilliant scotch analogy, and is then joined by playwright and comedian Jeremy Kareken to rant about protectionism. 

Globalisation…it’s a hot topic in economics but why do so many economists emphasise the importance of trade? Many would argue that this began with David Ricardo and his Theory of Comparative Advantage, leading to the interdependence between countries that we see today. Who was Ricardo and how did he develop his ideas? What would he have made of today's global economy? And what is his very tenuous connection to fish and chips? Listen to this episode to find out more about this famous economist and his impact on the world today, whilst being entertained and informed by Pete and Gav throughout. Technical support comes from Nic and music from Jukedeck – create your own at jukedeck.com

The presence of a gender gap in the tech industry is indisputable, but the causes and solutions for the gap are still up for debate. Ashkhen Kazaryan from TechFreedom joins Paul and Matthew to discuss several theories for the origins of the gap, ranging from overt discrimination to the insidious unintended consequences of the invention of the nerd archetype in the 1980s. Ashkhen compares her experience of discrimination in the tech policy world, which has relative gender parity, with the problems in the tech sector, which does not. Finally, the three talk about steps that can be taken to close the gender gap.Is the gender gap the cause of sexual discrimination, or is sexual discrimination the cause of the gender gap? When did gender disparity become apparent in the tech world? How can women finally be heard in the tech world? Why are women clustered in non-executive and non-engineering staff positions at big tech giants like Google & Facebook? How should we encourage more young girls to enter the tech industry?Further Reading:Tech Policy Podcast, produced by Tech FreedomReflecting On One Very, Very Strange Year At Uber, written by Susan FowlerTech Doesn’t Have A Gender Problem, written by Amelia IrvineGirls Who CodeDo Boys Have a Comparative Advantage in Math and Science?, written by Alex TabarrokRelated Content:Emerging Tech, Free Thoughts PodcastThe Psychology of Freedom: How Sexist Language Harms Women, written by Sharon PresleyTwo Faces of Sexism: Exclusion and Exploitation, written by Sarah Skwire See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

This week we're talking about Comparative Advantage and asking the question "why should we engage in trade." I cover both the concept as well as its originator, David Ricardo, who you will discover is in fact "The Most Interesting Man in the World." If you want to tell me why I'm wrong, come on out and join our Facebook group at: https://www.facebook.com/groups/340933856307543/ or you can always send me an email at: okayletmetellyouwhyyourewrong@gmail.com

Trade, Comparative Advantage and Protectionism I want to devote this entire podcast on the subject of trade and comparative advantage and protectionism, and this trade war that President Trump is so confident about.  He wants to declare war because he thinks we are going to win.  He's a winner, and he wants America to win and so he wants to launch a trade war so that America can win. The Trade Deficit is the Problem I've been talking about how the trade deficits are at record highs.  We have the biggest trade deficits ever and Donald Trump, when he was a candidate rightly criticized these trade deficits. They are a huge problem. They are endemic of an even bigger problem, and Trump understands that.  He knows enough to realize that trade deficits are bad. I will give him credit where credit is due because most economists don't even see the problem with these trade deficits. They are wrong. Trump is right. The trade deficit is a problem. Tariffs Will Not Solve the Problem But where Trump is wrong is in thinking that these tariffs are going to solve the problem.  They won't.  They will make the problem worse.  This is the irony of these tariffs.  They will result in larger trade deficits, not smaller trade deficits. And that's even without any foreign retaliation; meaning, if China, if Europe, if our trading partners do nothing in response to these tariffs, the result will be larger, not smaller deficits. Manufacturing jobs - the very jobs that Trump is hoping to save will be lost as a result of these tariffs. Mr. Trump: Slash Regulations! I wish someone in the Trump administration, would share this podcast with President Trump.  He needs to really this about economics, to understand what needs to be done.  If Trump really wants to shrink America's trade deficit, there are ways to do that. He could slash regulations, not just talk about all the regulations, but actually slash a bunch of them. Shrink Government But the most important thing that Trump could do to make America more competitive in manufacturing is to shrink government.  We need to cut government spending on a massive scale.  We need to reform entitlements. These are things that President Trump doesn't want to touch. He's making government bigger.  What we need is more savings. We need more capital investment in plant and equipment - but that's not happening. These larger deficits are going to crowd out what little investment we have.

Ray Keating explains why free trade is a positive for U.S. businesses, workers and consumers. Contrary to some misguided politicians, Keating makes clear that free trade rocks!

Lesson 41 – Trade using Comparative Advantage (Chapter 16)

Building on the concept of opportunity cost, Baetjer explains how specialization and trade make us richer.

Episode 28 of the Entrepreneur Abundance System coaches you to prosper by trading on your strengths. Both the 80/20 Rule and the Theory of Comparative Advantage encourage trade. Kruger's published research confirms with years of global data that imports and exports magnify the domestic economy. Apply this research to your business by becoming a Premium Member. 

Economic topic of production possibility frontier & comparative advantage are core principles in economics, demonstrating the use of models and concepts of scarcity, opportunity cost, and trade-offs in decision making. The post EA200.10 Production Possibility Frontier & Comparative Advantage appeared first on Accounting Instruction, Help, & How To (Financial & Managerial).

David Autor of MIT talks with EconTalk host Russ Roberts about the fundamentals of trade and his research on the impact on workers and communities from trade with China. Autor's research finds large and persistent effects on manufacturing jobs and communities where those jobs once were. Autor and Roberts discuss whether these results capture the full impact of increased trade with China and what the policy response might be that could help workers hurt by trade.

Join Ed and Ron as they explain the Trading Game, where participants learn the subjective nature of value, how increasing the availability of goods and services your company offers leads to prosperity, happiness, and a higher standard of living for all; and why the trade deficit doesn't matter. The real wealth of nations is in the availability of goods and services, and by trading with the world there's more abundance to choose from. You'll come away with a deeper understanding of how business is a serious moral enterprise, not the simplistic idea it is based on greed, and that cooperation is far more prevalent than competition.

Join Ed and Ron as they explain the Trading Game, where participants learn the subjective nature of value, how increasing the availability of goods and services your company offers leads to prosperity, happiness, and a higher standard of living for all; and why the trade deficit doesn't matter. The real wealth of nations is in the availability of goods and services, and by trading with the world there's more abundance to choose from. You'll come away with a deeper understanding of how business is a serious moral enterprise, not the simplistic idea it is based on greed, and that cooperation is far more prevalent than competition.

Join Ed and Ron as they explain the Trading Game, where participants learn the subjective nature of value, how increasing the availability of goods and services your company offers leads to prosperity, happiness, and a higher standard of living for all; and why the trade deficit doesn't matter. The real wealth of nations is in the availability of goods and services, and by trading with the world there's more abundance to choose from. You'll come away with a deeper understanding of how business is a serious moral enterprise, not the simplistic idea it is based on greed, and that cooperation is far more prevalent than competition.

Comparative advantage is a simple idea from economics, but its implications are mind-blowing. It is a process that most people misunderstand, but it is at the root of everything that we create. Comparative advantage is intimately linked to what it means to be human. Show Notes: Economist article on comparative advantage Matt Ridley on comparative advantage

Shanta Devarajan is the Chief Economist of the World Bank’s Middle East and North Africa Region.  Since joining the World Bank in 1991, he has been a Principal Economist and Research Manager for Public Economics in the Development Research Group, and the Chief Economist of the Human Development Network, South Asia, and Africa Region. Shanta was the director of the World Development Report 2004, ‘Making Services Work for Poor People’. Before 1991, he was on the faculty of Harvard University’s John F. Kennedy School of Government. Shanta is the author and co-author of over 100 publications, with his research covering public economics, trade policy, natural resources and the environment, and general equilibrium modeling of developing countries. Born in Sri Lanka, Shanta received his B.A. in Mathematics from Princeton University and his Ph.D. in Economics from University of California, Berkeley. In this episode, you will learn: why Shanta decided to take a sabbatical from lecturing and never went back. about Shanta’s passion to end world poverty. how experiencing living on a $1 a day with a poor family made Shanta realize that the failure lies with government. how empowering people in poverty-stricken countries with information could be the catalyst to end poverty. the huge government failures and market distortions threatening the economy in India. why teachers and doctors in India are absent from work 25% and 40% of the time respectively and how this is affecting progress. how the powerful medical union in India are making healthcare inaccessible to the poor. about how crony capitalism is preventing SMEs from growing in the MENA region. why Tunisia has failed to develop into an export-oriented economy due the legacy of the Ben Ali family and their connections to firms operating in heavily protected markets. that the failure for governments to continue with social contracts due to high deficits triggered the Arab Spring. about Colonel Gaddafi’s regime and how he managed to keep peace between tribes.   how water subsidies and water-intensive crops are depleting water resources in Yemen. and much much more. Never miss an episode by subscribing on iTunes and get access to all previous Economic Rockstar podcast episodes. Join my community of educators - teachers and lecturers - who want to learn how to build a website, launch a podcast and create educational videos. Take the Economic Rockstar podcast survey and be in with a chance to win a $50 Amazon gift card.

Description: In this episode of The Frugal Snobs Podcast, We discuss the advantages of Competitive and Comparative Advantage as well as how to leverage your professional advantage as well as creating new advantage. As a podcast  extra, we included a QBR for the Freedom American IPA. --- Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/frugal-snobs/support

One of the great privileges of our unique network is that we have access to some of the most eminent former partners like Kevin Coyne and Bill Matassoni. We adopt their insights when designing our case training and strategy training programs. Our goal at Firmsconsulting is to allow our members access to the partners from whom we seek advise.  This is an exclusive interview that Bill Matassoni recently had with Firmsconsulting where he shared some counter-intuitive concepts you will not hear anywhere else. Bill Matassoni was the partner who was involved in developing and implementing the McKinsey philosophy that helped the firm pull ahead of BCG in the 1980s and 1990s. He was thereafter the partner who led BCG's efforts to overtake McKinsey. This insightful, inspiring and counter intuitive podcast explains the steps McKinsey took in the 1980s to reposition the firm. Planning is meaningless unless you know what to plan. You need a point of differentiation and you need to consistently drive that difference. Competitive advantage is wrong to pursue. You need to look for comparative advantage.  See if you can extract those lessons from this podcast. Bill Matassoni started his career in management consulting in 1980 when he joined McKinsey & Company. He was a partner there for almost 20 years, focusing on the branding of professional services. He was responsible for building McKinsey's reputation and protecting its brand, which included publishing the McKinsey Quarterly. In doing so he worked closely with many of his colleagues worldwide including Tom Peters, Jon Katzenbach, Kenichi Ohmai, John Sawhill, John Stucky, and John Hagel. He was also responsible for much of McKinsey's internal communications. This included the creation of McKinsey's systems to manage and disseminate its practice knowledge. These efforts are described in an HBR case study. He left McKinsey to join Mitchell Madison Group, a strategy consulting firm he helped to take public through its sale to USWeb/CKS in 1999. He then joined The Boston Consulting Group, where he headed for over five years a group responsible for innovation, marketing and communications. As at McKinsey, Bill Matassoni worked closely with several of BCG's thought leaders — George Stalk, Michael Silverstein, Philip Evans, Yves Morieux, Hal Sirkin and others — to develop their ideas and turn them into consulting assignments. Bill Matassoni retired from BCG a few years ago and founded The Glass House Group, a consulting firm that helps professional service firms with branding and marketing issues. At one of his clients, Tapestry Networks, Bill has become a senior advisor.  Bill Matassoni is a graduate of Phillips Andover (1964), Harvard College (B.A. Literature, 1968) and Harvard Business School (M.B.A., 1975). For many years Bill Matassoni was on the board of trustees of United Way of America and United Way International. He is now on the board of trustees of First Book and a senior advisor to Ashoka, an organization that invests in social entrepreneurs. He is also on the Board of Advisors of The Demand Institute, a non-profit funded by The Conference Board and Nielsen. He remains interested in the management and marketing of professional services firms, social marketing and healthcare reform. If you have never had the opportunity to meet Marvin Bower, and that would apply to most of McKinsey's current partners, Bill's thinking is the second best thing to have access to. In this wide ranging interview, Bill Matassoni and I discuss the following about the strategy, culture, values, mistakes and problems of McKinsey and BCG:  McKinsey & Co. How a partner's background shapes his or her viewpoint The old influence of HBR on a consulting brand's position Bill's unconventional path into McKinsey and BCG Managing versus inspiring other senior partners Working with senior partners from McKinsey like Ron Daniels, Fred Gluck, Herb Ensinger, Kenichi Ohmae, Tom Peters, Bob Waterman, Lowell Bryan, Tom Steiner and Marvin Bower Insightful new anecdotes and stories not published before How to get partners to build a firm's position and knowledge Competitive advantage in management consulting The problem with trying to position a firm as a consulting firm McKinsey problems in recent times and lack of differentiation Why strategy is less analytic than it seems WSJ vs. The Economist vs. HBR for eminence The Fortune Magazine story that changed McKinsey's profile What is McKinsey's point of differentiation - it is not analytics or strategy How to build a leadership factory Why all the books about McKinsey, like "The Firm", completely miss the mark Anecdotes about Marvin Bower Using actions to build principles versus using principles to build actions The problem with marketing in consulting How McKinsey really makes decisions and tests them aka how to know when you are junior How to bring about change in traditional businesses with deep histories BCG The difference between BCG and McKinsey BCG's strengths and weaknesses What is BCG's culture How positioning drives operational decisions Managing practice meetings And much, much more. If you found this piece interesting, please post comments and questions. We will be interviewing other very senior ex-partners of McKinsey and BCG, and will use these comments as an input for future interviews. We also use comments and social shares to determine if a series should be pursued. If you would like us to interview another BCG or McKinsey ex-partner, corporate executive or renowned athlete please let us know. Hope you enjoyed it.  Michael

Dermot Hayes is the Pioneer Chair of Agribusiness, professor of economics, and professor of finance at Iowa State University. He heads the Trade and Agricultural Policy Division at CARD, a position he also held from 1990 through 1998.    He is co-director of the Food and Agricultural Policy Research Institute, a research center dually administered through the Centre for Agricultural and Rural Development or CARD at Iowa State and at the University of Missouri at Columbia. He is also a leader of the Policy Task Force of the Plant Science Institute at Iowa State.   A native of the Republic of Ireland, Dermot obtained his degree in agriculture science from the University College in Dublin and his Ph.D. from the University of California, Berkeley with a major in international trade.    Dermot has distinguished himself with many awards at the college and university levels for his work as a teacher and researcher.    In 2006 he received a "Publication of Enduring Quality" award from the American Agricultural Economics Association, who subsequently named him a Fellow in 2007.      Besides his analysis of U.S. farm policy and international agricultural trade, Dermot’s other research interests include food safety, livestock modeling, demand analysis, and commodity markets.   Find out:   how China is finding ways to feed its people and how self-sufficiency no longer works.  about China’s ever-increasing demands for soybeans, sugar, wine, etc and how this is putting demands on the global agricultural industry. how Ireland lost its comparative advantage in milk production by joining the EU. about Kerrygold Irish grass-fed butter and Bullet-proof coffee. why Kerry Group are only ‘scratching the surface’ in the US market. what high-value, labor-intensive products China should concentrate on producing in order to feed their population and trade with other countries. about if the Chinese government owns much of the land and property rights in China. ‘terminator seeds’ and how private companies could be incentivised to manufacture them. about the use of beta agonists, such as ractopomine, in the use of animal food production. and much, much more. Subscribe on iTunes and never miss an episode. Check out the shownotes page at www.economicrockstar.com/dermothayes

Absolute & Comparative Advantage

Philosopher Dr. Diana Brickell answered questions on the social effects of economic inequality, favoritism for the genetically engineered, the value of the Ten Commandments, and more in this 20 October 2013 episode of Philosophy in Action Radio. http://www.PhilosophyInAction.com

Philosopher Dr. Diana Brickell answered questions on the social effects of economic inequality, favoritism for the genetically engineered, the value of the Ten Commandments, and more in this 20 October 2013 episode of Philosophy in Action Radio. http://www.PhilosophyInAction.com

David Ricardo's famous economic model, predicts that if there are just two countries and two products both can be better off if they specialise and trade in the thing they’re relatively best at.

Transcript -- David Ricardo's famous economic model, predicts that if there are just two countries and two products both can be better off if they specialise and trade in the thing they’re relatively best at.

David Ricardo's famous economic model, predicts that if there are just two countries and two products both can be better off if they specialise and trade in the thing they’re relatively best at.

Transcript -- David Ricardo's famous economic model, predicts that if there are just two countries and two products both can be better off if they specialise and trade in the thing they’re relatively best at.

This dissertation consists of four chapters, which are self-contained and can be read independently of each other. In Chapter 1, we analyse services trade liberalisation, which is a prerequisite for international production networks to arise. In particular, we study the determinants of services liberalisation undertaken by countries under the General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS) of 1995. In Chapters 2-4, we analyse different aspects of the patterns of trade in intermediates. In Chapter 2, we assess the determinants of bilateral trade in intermediate goods and services. In Chapter 3, we investigate the role of institutions and transport infrastructure as sources of comparative advantage for intermediate goods. In Chapter 4, we study trade in intermediates in the context of the activities of multinational enterprises by assessing the determinants of the share of intra-firm trade in total trade of intermediates.

Russ Roberts, host of EconTalk, does a monologue this week on the economics of trade and specialization. Economists have focused on David Ricardo's idea of comparative advantage as the source of specialization and wealth creation from trade. Drawing on Adam Smith and the work of James Buchanan, Yong Yoon, and Paul Romer, Roberts argues that we've neglected the role of the size of the market in creating incentives for specialization and wealth creation via trade. Simply put, the more people we trade with, the greater the opportunity to specialize and innovate, even when people are identical. The Ricardian insight masks the power of market size in driving innovation and the transformation of our standard of living over the last few centuries in the developed world.

Russ Roberts, host of EconTalk, does a monologue this week on the economics of trade and specialization. Economists have focused on David Ricardo's idea of comparative advantage as the source of specialization and wealth creation from trade. Drawing on Adam Smith and the work of James Buchanan, Yong Yoon, and Paul Romer, Roberts argues that we've neglected the role of the size of the market in creating incentives for specialization and wealth creation via trade. Simply put, the more people we trade with, the greater the opportunity to specialize and innovate, even when people are identical. The Ricardian insight masks the power of market size in driving innovation and the transformation of our standard of living over the last few centuries in the developed world.

In this episode we discuss the theory of comparative advantage and work through a numerical example. We also look at some of the limitations of the theory.

Business & Information Technology

Don Boudreaux, of George Mason University, talks about the ideas in his book, Globalization. He discusses comparative advantage, the winners and losers from trade, trade deficits, and inequality with EconTalk host Russ Roberts.

Don Boudreaux, of George Mason University, talks about the ideas in his book, Globalization. He discusses comparative advantage, the winners and losers from trade, trade deficits, and inequality with EconTalk host Russ Roberts.

This paper looks at Austria's pattern of development and its lessons for Eastern Europe. Austria's development path is characterized by two features. In the post-war era Austria was among the countries with the fastest convergence rate. At the same time Austria's movement up the technological ladder was slow compared to other European countries. The paper uses insights from recent dynamic theories of trade to explain these two stylized facts. It is argued that resource endowments, international knowledge spillovers, learning, and government policy have contributed to Austria's post war growth and the evolution of its pattern of trade over time. The paper looks at two lessons for Eastern Europe. First, Austria as a possible economic case for a gradual approach to economic reform. Second, in light of the Austrian experience a recent industrial and trade policy proposal for Eastern Europe is discussed.

What is comparative advantage? And why is it important to trade? This video guides us through a specific example surrounding Tasmania — an island off the coast of Australia that experienced the miracle of growth in reverse. Through this example we show...

Comparative advantage explains why people trade and what goods they should trade. To illustrate the concept of comparative advantage, we ask: Should Martha Stewart iron her own shirts? Even if Martha Stewart has an absolute advantage in ironing shirts,...

Make sure you’ve completed the homework introduced in the Comparative Advantage video before you watch this video, as we’ll be going over the answer. We take a look at our example which compares shirt and computer production and consumption in Mexico and...