The way you do it is you use one country's production schedule as a reference (country A is the easiest), and realise the opportunity costs.
In country A: 1 car = 1 computer (reference market)
In country B:
- producing 1 car would come at the opportunity cost of 2/3 of a computer.
- producing 1 computer would come at the opportunity cost of 3/2 of a car.
Since 1 car is worth 1 computer, clearly country B should produce cars, where the opportunity cost is less than the benefit (1 car vs. 0.667 computers = 0.667 cars).
On the other hand, country B would not make computers, because it would cost them 1.5 computers to produce 1.
You can use country B as the reference market instead, to see what country A would produce, and it should just be the other way around (should find computers more profitable).
I'll run through the example I guess:
In country B: 3 cars = 2 computers (reference market)
In country A:
- producing 1 car would come at the opportunity cost of 1 computer.
- producing 1 computer would come at the opportunity cost of 1 car.
Since 1 car is worth 1 computer, which is worth 3/2 cars (purchased from country B), country A would not produce cars, because it costs them 1.5 to produce 1.
On the other hand, country A would make computers, because it would cost them 1 car (worth 2/3 computers from country B), so the opportunity cost is less than the produce.
It shouldn't really take this long in an exam. This is sort of walking through the steps and methodology. Some people can just work it out in their heads, because it is a bit intuitive. The best anecdotal way to understand comparative advantages is via the "lawyer and his son mowing the lawn" example. The lawyer (older and more experienced) may be a better mower, but since his son is clearly much worse at law than he is at mowing, the son shall do the mowing while the lawyer practices law.
Home
Help
Search
Login
