If you're seeing this message, it means we're having trouble loading external resources on our website.

If you're behind a web filter, please make sure that the domains *.kastatic.org and *.kasandbox.org are unblocked.

# Opportunity cost and comparative advantage using an output table

AP.MACRO:
MKT‑1 (EU)
,
MKT‑1.A (LO)
,
MKT‑1.A.1 (EK)
,
MKT‑1.A.2 (EK)
,
MKT‑1.B (LO)
,
MKT‑1.B.1 (EK)
,
MKT‑1.B.2 (EK)
AP.MICRO:
MKT‑2 (EU)
,
MKT‑2.A (LO)
,
MKT‑2.A.1 (EK)
,
MKT‑2.A.2 (EK)
,
MKT‑2.B (LO)
,
MKT‑2.B.1 (EK)
,
MKT‑2.B.2 (EK)
In this video, we use the PPCs for two different countries that each produce two goods in order to create an output table based on the data in the graph. We then use the output table to determine the opportunity costs of producing each good. Finally, we determine which country has a comparative advantage in each good.

## Want to join the conversation?

• What if the company/country produces only one good? Would it have no opportunity cost?
• Everything has an opportunity cost! For example, suppose a country only produced cars. Then the opportunity cost would something it could be producing instead using the same resources (like motorcycles or trucks).
• What if the country could produce only 6 basketballs, the opportunity cost would be 1.
So which country would have a comparative advantage? Because in this scenario the country A would always produce more.
• Neither would have a comparative advantage because their opportunity costs would be the same. 6b = 6s. Solve for basketballs and you get 1s which is the same as country B.

Comparative advantage only compares the opportunity costs of each country, so it doesn't matter how much each country can actually produce. If we were talking about absolute advantage it would be a different story as absolute advantage compares how much they can actually produce (not their opportunity costs).
• how can country b have a lower oppertunity cost?