Understanding Transaction and Trade
Vložit
- čas přidán 31. 05. 2021
- Did you ever trade baseball cards as a kid? Or maybe you didn't like your lunch, and traded it with someone else. We all understand trade in this context, exchanging one thing for something else. But any sale is also considered a trade. When we exchange money for goods or services, we are participating in a transaction. This is something that is done between a producer and a consumer, and middlemen, or dealers, can sometimes be involved. Governments can interfere with trade, in the way of tariffs and quotas. What are these, exactly? Let's get a closer look now!
Script by Matt Beat: / iammrbeat
Animation by Ignacio Triana: / unraveled
Watch the whole Economics playlist: bit.ly/ProfDaveEcon
Mathematics Tutorials: bit.ly/ProfDaveMath
American History Tutorials: bit.ly/ProfDaveAmericanHistory
History of Drugs Videos: bit.ly/ProfDaveHistoryDrugs
General Chemistry Tutorials: bit.ly/ProfDaveGenChem
Classical Physics Tutorials: bit.ly/ProfDavePhysics1
EMAIL► ProfessorDaveExplains@gmail.com
PATREON► / professordaveexplains
Check out "Is This Wi-Fi Organic?", my book on disarming pseudoscience!
Amazon: amzn.to/2HtNpVH
Bookshop: bit.ly/39cKADM
Barnes and Noble: bit.ly/3pUjmrn
Book Depository: bit.ly/3aOVDlT
Dear Professor Dave,
Thank you for all the content you have made and will continue to make. You have taught us all so much about the universe and the science that governs it. I have learned so much from you. I wake up in the morning and check to see if you have new videos. You got me into this amazing, vast world of all forms of science. I have plans to go to school for astrophysics because you introduced me to this. You have changed my life in the best way possible. Thank you for everything.
Professor Dave, can you please start a series on Differential Equations?? You make the best educational content around every time.
I've been hoping to do that for a while! Just looking for the right writer.
Prof. Dave, what amazing explanation! Very well done!
I actually needed to know this for a class I am taking
Sir where are you from
You are an extraordinary and a gifted person.. you perhaps don't know, what service you are rendering to the society.
Nice introduction to the subject. I'm very interested to see where the series leads as you progress to the things that take this simple process and turn it into the complex process that we have today. The discussion should be fun, sort of a Thronton Melling vs Dr. Philip Barbay business argument.
You make awesome content for us ❤️
Hey Dave, I really enjoy your content, and I want you to know I'm very much looking forward to seeing more in the pharmacology series. Also, immunology.
Sorry for the delay on both, they are coming soon!
@@ProfessorDaveExplains thank you so much
This is just the video I needed right now.
How u literally know everything Sir... Grt
Same doubt for me, he reads a lot of books I think
Research duh
It's called books
Professor you are for real
Can you arrange this to describe the motion of the basketball at different position
A . vertical velocity is zero;
horizontal velocity is constant
B. final velocity is maximum
C .initial velocity is miavimum
D. verticial velocity decreases; horizontal velocity is constant
E. vertical velocity increases horizontal velocity is constant
F. veritical velocity increases; horizontal velocity decreases
G. vertical velocity decreases; horizontal velocity increases
1.
2
3.
4.
5.
this is very interesting
Thx
These are great reminders of the basic underlying concepts (or a clear introduction for some)! I can’t wait to see if you move on to behavioral economics at some point.
You can also just learn an actual science like psychology instead
@@darkelwin02 well, YOUR comment made no sense. There ARE psychological concepts in behavioral economics, however, there is rarely, if ever economics in psychology. I say this having been a psychology lab assistant for (4? 5? years...).
Or, you need to learn the definition of what a science is...
God I love this channel
Professor Dave, would you please explain a tariff a bit more? Who ultimately pays the tariff; the consumer or the producer?
Both pay, but the split can be complicated. It depends on the slope of the supply and demand curves (elasticity). An elastic curve means that changes in price cause large changes in the quantity supplied or demanded. An inelastic curve means that changes in price cause small changes in the quantity supplied or demanded.
More elastic supply curves and less elastic demand curves lead to consumers paying more of the tariff. Less elastic supply curves and more elastic demand curves lead to producers paying more. Examples follow
Demand is inelastic. Consumers are willing to pay more for goods and prices are kept down by competition among producers. An example of this is drugs. I need my ibuprofen. Even if it was twice as expensive, I'd buy and take the same amount. Native ibuprofen producers would be free to increase their prices with less foreign competition. A special ibuprofen tax would be paid almost entirely by the consumer.
Demand is elastic. Consumers will consume less if the price rises. Consider a special tax on coca cola (because of it's one unique ingredient). I don't have an incredible thirst specifically for coke. I'll switch to Pepsi or another soda over a tiny increase. To sell coke, the post tax price would have to remain competitive. The coca cola company would have to pay more of the tax.
Supply is inelastic. The banana crop isn't going to change much in the short term. The banana producers have to sell them somewhere even if there is a tariff. This means that banana producers will try to sell the same volume of bananas. If the price rises, consumers will buy fewer bananas. So producers have to keep the price low by paying for the tariff.
Supply is elastic. If there is a tariff on plastic utensils, factories can switch their molds to make other plastic goods. Distributors can sell their stock more slowly. The producers can let the price rise and the amount sold drop. So they can pass more of the tariff on to consumers.
@@FuriouslySleepingIde, what an excellent reply based on macroeconomic theory taught in the late 1980's. Your ability to regurgitate outdated, macroeconomic textbook theory from 1988 is truly dizzying.
I'd like to read Professor Dave's response based on his own analysis of the current world socioeconomic climate.
@@glennpearson9348 The funny thing about old macro/micro theory is that it's the Newtonian mechanics of economic theory (although farther than Newton from being universal). There are things it doesn't account for. There are specific circumstances where it breaks down. Things can get very complicated and classical macro/micro is overly simple. But it's right more often than its wrong, and we know when and why it breaks down.
However, so are you tube comments, and you presented yourself as a complete novice. If a complete novice is only going to get a short answer to any economic question, the best answer is "It's complicated, but classical micro/macro suggests the answer is..." If you want to understand any economic issue, knowing the classical answer is an important starting point for any discussion or position.
If you think there are major factors that I'm ignoring, you may be right. If you think that simply because it's a classical macro answer it could be very wrong, you'd need more reasons than that.
@@FuriouslySleepingIde, indeed. I presented my question as a novice because I didn't want "guild the lily," as they say.
Let's take an example. The U.S. decides to impose a tariff on certain Chinese imports; let's say computer chips for giggles. All else being equal, the cost to the consumer/importer (the U.S.) for each computer chip will increase, while the profit margin for the Chinese producer/exporter remains unchanged. This is the base case before ensuing market forces come to bear. In other words, the consumer/importer (the U.S.) pays the tariff. Other market forces that could develop later to potentially change that condition might include:
- The U.S. develops its own computer chips (elastic supply, I suppose, from a different source). Imported purchase of Chinese computer chips, in theory, go down because there is an increased supply of a similar competing product, but the consumer/importer is still paying the tariff for any remaining Chinese exported computer chips.
- The Chinese producer/exporter lowers the cost of its computer chips so that it essentially "eats" the price differential imposed by the tariff. It's a zero-sum game for the importer/consumer, so they continue to import the computer chips unless/until the Chinese producer/exporter decides to sell its computer chips elsewhere. I suppose in this case, one could make the argument that the producer/exporter ends up "paying" for the tariff, but given today's environment the Chinese producer/exporter simply shifts its sales of the computer chips elsewhere and, once again, it's the consumer/importer that ends up with the short end of the stick (no computer chips, or so few that local resellers jack the price up anyway).
I'm certain there are other scenarios I'm not considering, but this is just argument's sake anyway.
My point is, your dissertation on elastic and inelastic supply and demand, while useful for analyzing a closed or limited free-market system (which, compared to today's standards, was the case in the 1980's when most macroeconomic theory was being overhauled), is less useful in determining steady-state, long-term outcomes of perturbations in modern free-market systems. Under current global economic framework (where the supply of money and access to it is virtually unlimited) I can't think of a situation when a tariff, which is an artificial obstruction to a free-market system, is either (a) helpful, or (b) paid for to any degree by the entity against whom the tariff is levied.
This’ll boost the economy
Hi
How do you know all of this (such a broad amount of knowledge) ?
I would imagine it takes a lot of reading and I know there are people who exist who pursue academic/intellectual hobbies/pursuits but it seems a little impractical to do all that reading for almost every subject/field *for a typical person*
I have a hypothesis, Professor Dave isn't a typical guy. :)
Dear Professor Dave - I remember you once saying we could ask you anything, by emailing .. but while I'm here ... on a KINETIC ENERGY matter ... I've recently been drawn into / TRICKED into perhaps, making endless videos where I TRY VERY HARD to vividly demonstrate that the kinetic energy formula is correct - mainly in answer to a particular individual challenging the entire physics community with a number of bizarre CLAIMS against the kinetic energy theory - if that's the correct term -
HE CLAIMS that
1) objects deflected off a spring etc, automatically go TWICE THE VELOCITY if we simply halve the mass ...NOT the 1.4 14 x - even though I PROVED it was 1.414 in a recent video - and MANY other videos - he dismisses every single one with silly excuses that I am cheating in some way etc ...
2) He deduces from that false claim, that kinetic energy theory ALSO must be claiming FREE ENERGY can be gained my merely replacing a mass which has just compressed a spring a certain amount, at a certain velocity, with one of HALF that mass - and that will then deflect off, again, at TWICE the velocity - and magically have TWICE the energy - thus creating free energy.
3) He further claims that a 10 ton train at 5 MPH WILL DO THE SAME WORK as a 5 ton train going 10 mph... because they have the same momentum - m x v ... so they will compress a big spring exactly the same amount. (even though I have SHOWED him many many private experiments I've done my absolute best to perform WITHOUT lab equipment, no air tracks - just dynamics carts made with hard drive platters used as low friction wheels and electronic timing mechanisms etc ..
NOTHING I EVER DO IS GOOD ENOUGH to convince this guy and his followers who look UP to him as some kind of "physics God". I have shown many times that those two trains, or similar scaled down, while having the saem momentum, the faster lighter object DOES MORE WORK COMPRESSING A SPRING. I have even re-done the CLAY EXPERIMENTS that started this whole thing off a couple of hundred year ago. I cannot ACTUALLY get the "four times deeper penetration" claim, when the clay is struck by a mass at TWICE the velocity, four times higher .. it always appears to go 3 times deeper - although i am using heavy copper bars and rods, rather the a ball - Could the SHAPE of the object be altering the results greatly?
Is there ANY way you can POINT us to anyone who is better able to demonstrate why Gary is talking utter nonsense, and thius STOP him "teaching" young people mainly, that absolute wrong things about not only THIS aspect of physics, but MANY other physics topics too... He disparages Walter Lewin and MIT, saying they cheated "radar interference" experiments even though I've performed THOSE experiments for him too, taking great care to show me doing them HIS way, that he said would cause the interference pattern to vanish ... Yet the interference pattern remains the same.
Forgive me if you have no interest or cannot recommend anyone / forward this message on to anyone who is BETTER able to respond to those nonsense claims, with experiments he cannot deny quite so easily as he can with my home made experiments, done on a budget. I think they are quick good considering I'm an electrician, not a scientist
If you can't help - no worries - Thank you for your time - Steve
(ANY support would be very welcome - I can;t find good demonstrations anywhere so I've had to do about 22 myself over recent months and it's VERY frustrating to have all that work ignored by the science denying individual in question.)
damn, i like your cut, g!!
Do plants feel pain?
Plz answer
Excellent as always.
The government places additional regulation on export and import of certain goods which can effect prices as well. For example agriculture has a load of restrictions and hoops to jump. Want to sell let's say, night vision gear to a foreign country? That company would have to comply with the ITAR.
Good video thanks again.
I think you are a polymath, Professor Dave
If Dave is teaching economics, we will all be rich. Thanks Dave, now I can take over the world
Technological Utopia is the solution. No need for money or work...
⚠️ Trade Offer ⚠️
I receive:
Your money
You receive:
My goods
That's an old American flag.
Alternative title: Why libertarians are right in theory but wrong in practice xD
Libertarians seem to ignore the fact that market failures exist
@@brageok Yup. And also they tend to ignore that into a market that is not regulated at all there will appear sharks that will try to accumulate as much money and power as possible and ultimately harm the competition.
Lets not forget that people dont want 'the market' to sell drugs to kids, yet free market theory demands this. Anyway glad to see some skeptics here, this just shows that Dave is not fit to teach 'economics'
libertarian here, no we do not forget that markets fails, we aknoledge this and understand that it is natural, but at the end of the day busynesses that were not generating value for society will fail and close the doors. And thats it.
Also if something is correct in theroy it BY DEFINITION have to be correct in practice, if the result differ its because there is some other variable that people are not taking in consideration.
I will be here to respond to any further questions.
@@darkelwin02 the parents of the kids are the ones that control If thier kids can buy drugs or not and if an adult wants to buy drugs for his children then he is the one committing a crime not the seller.
I don’t understand why you do video like this. It is very basic and is purely clickable content. Your science is good but this stuff I can give a miss.
This is an economics series. It is what students learn in introductory economics. If the topic doesn't interest you, then don't watch it.
@@ProfessorDaveExplains I would also like to point out that this is a very relevant topic, It's very common to politicians and some members of a society the to "misuse" this field so some basic knowledge about economics will always be good for people.
I take for example one of the most common in my country, the use of the concept "comparative advantage" (which you will cover on next video I sure), of course the theory isn't wrong by any way, but It fails to present a good long term policy because of how productivity varies over time depending on the sector (in short, complex industries tends to become more productive over time rather than simpler ones, which what is called the deterioration of the terms of exchange).
Anyway, thats enough ramble, great series you doing Professor Dave, It's really on point with my course, you're doing an important job here.
While this is indeed what students get in intro classes, its not presented as such. It is indeed an important subject. That still leaves most of economics pseudoscience and the contents of this video just showing a very specific and unproven hypotheses on the matter
@@darkelwin02 Really? All this stuff was presented on my intro classes and were presented as such, at the start was only based upon an already given demand and marginal cost functions, but later we had to derive the marginal cost from the production function and their respective prices (for a competitive
market, monopoly and monopson can become pretty complicated some times). In short, the basic neoclassical theory is (in my opinion) pseudoscience, academics like Say, Menger, Jevons, Walras and such didn't really tried or just didn't bother to gather empirical evidence and thought that internal logical consistency would be enough to back their theory (thats even funnier when you consider that these guys thought that economics should be "pure science" and should be done on the basis of maths [that I agree on], like a natural science, they just forgot to observe AND THEN develop the theory instead of use deductive logic).
Sorry for any errors, english isn't my first language and google translator doesn't give good translations for these "complex terms".
these economics videos are hype
i am a 11 year old roblox player how is this in my recommended
You kinda look like penguinz0
please do a debunking video on little green men, I'm sick of those shitty low quality videos of UFO's, even the m.ainstream media is promoting that pseudoscience sh__ .
Is economics honestly a science? I find the unuanced presentation of free market ideas very scary. Following the line of logic here we must not have healthcare and stop making drugs and weapons illegal. After all, impediments to the market is worse for everyone? Sorry Dave, but this simply wont do. Reupload with huge disclaimers and maybe ill trust you again. Right now this video is just pushing a specific political view and has nothing to do with what actual science or social measurements tell us.
Um, there is absolutely nothing even remotely political about this video. This is basic economics concepts, as written by an economics teacher. You can learn about it or not, that's your choice.
You don't get to choose what is and what isn't a science. Also free healthcare is taking money from someone by force and giving it to someone else that hadn't provided anything for it, and if an adult wanted to use drugs who are you to say he's not allowed to?
You'd probably find political subversion in Brittany Spears' hair style.
I'm retracting my last comment after carefully re-reading yours. I have no reason to believe Dave purposefully ignored the nuances of free market ideas, but at best I do believe the presentation failed to balance in the implications of free trade as it affects the global environment, geopolitical structures, nations, economies, JOBs, and the end consumer. But after all, the video is 5:16 and seems correct for that level of discussion.
Edit: Added "JOBs" to list of free trade (in case anyone cares).
@@bradsillasen1972 It IS okay for teaching kids. But if you are not going to state it as such... I was pretty upset with this channel of all things being so careless about that.
Xr4ezzzzz