Economics Questions

Re: Essentials of Economics by FAUSTINO BALLVE

Dbsafc — Wed, 20 May 2009 01:27:44 GMT

I read this off of a PDF file from Mises.org months ago. A fine intro text; I wish there were more Latin American Austrians out there.

Re: Essentials of Economics by FAUSTINO BALLVE

Matgre — Tue, 19 May 2009 22:00:42 GMT

I am not done with the book yet, but until now I find it to be extremely helpful! This is my second book ever on economics (the first one being Economics in One Lesson by Henry Hazzlit) and all I can say is bravo! It is very well written and for econ-newbs like me it's the ideal introduction to the economic field!

I guess we could draw more attention to the book if it was featured in the Mises shop as a must-have for beginners? That is how I got to read H.H's Economics in One Lesson (which refers to Ballve's book at the end).

Oh and by the way M.Tucker, your article on cooperation http://mises.org/story/3015 really nailed it for me!

Thank you.

Re: Essentials of Economics by FAUSTINO BALLVE

Matgre — Tue, 19 May 2009 21:49:08 GMT

Thanks a bunch for that article link!! I get it now.

Re: Essentials of Economics by FAUSTINO BALLVE

Robert — Tue, 19 May 2009 10:25:22 GMT

I have recently finished this book as well, and alongside Gene Callahan's "Economics for Real People" I think it ranks as one of the very best introductory Austrian economic texts for beginners. Both books phenomenally comprehensive, while presenting their ideas in a very easy to read and understand manner.

In regards to bringing more attention to it, I'm recommending it to a lot of my friends whom I know are interested in economics but just have been put off by the idea of it being overly complex and mathematical in nature, so this book is perfect for them.

Re: Essentials of Economics by FAUSTINO BALLVE

jtucker — Tue, 19 May 2009 00:42:47 GMT

Do you LOVE this book? I just think it is fantastic!

Not well known enough.

What can we all do to draw more attention to these treasures?

Re: Essentials of Economics by FAUSTINO BALLVE

MatthewWilliam — Mon, 18 May 2009 23:47:09 GMT

Think of it in relative terms, not absolute terms.

A: X = 3h Y = 2h

B: X = 5h Y= 4h

It costs A 2/3X to produce 1 Y, while it costs B 4/5X to produce 1 Y. So it is cheaper for A to specialise in producing Y.

I think this article makes it very clear: http://mises.org/story/3015

Essentials of Economics by FAUSTINO BALLVE

Matgre — Mon, 18 May 2009 21:24:22 GMT

I started reading Essentials of Economics A BRIEF SURVEY OF PRINCIPLES AND POLICIES by FAUSTINO BALLVE and I have a question regarding the example he gave to explain the law of association (also known as the law of comparative cost) page 39.

It goes like this: "[...] if, for example, producer A needs three hours to produce commodity X and two hours to produce commodity Y, while producer B (in a country in a less advanced state of industrial development) needs five and four hours respectively, it is advantageous for all concerned for A to produce only commodity Y and for B to produce only commodity X; for in that case each of them will produce a greater quantity in the same number of hours, and the two together will produce more of both commodities than if each had undertaken to produce them both."

I don't get it. Isn't producer A producing both commodities in 5 hours total while producer B producing only commodity X in the same amount of time? How is producer B better than A at producing commodity X? (5 hours vs 3 hours). I am confuuuused!!

Thx in advance!