WHATS YOUR OPINION/THOUGHTS REGARDING THIS DISCUSSION PLEASE I DO NOT NEED THE DEFENTION OR REPEATE WHAT THE DISCUSSION SAY GIVE EXAMPLES

Absolute advantage is when one entity is able to manufacture a good or service at either higher quality or faster rate than those of their competitor. They receive a greater profit. This can be on a business level and up to competition between countries. Comparative advantage is when opportunity costs are taken into account as a factor for analyzing different production options. Having a lower opportunity cost gives a comparative advantage. Trade is still beneficial when one entity has absolute advantage in both tasks because trade gains are from specializing in the entity's comparative advantage. Creating a trade that takes advantage of low opportunity costs is beneficial, even if one entity has the absolute advantage in both tasks already. If an entity has absolute and comparative advantage in both tasks, then there would be less of a reason for them to conduct trades with other entities since their opportunity costs are already better. The opportunity cost of a certain task is what determines the fair trade terms. Both entities should be receiving an equal counterpart in the trade, and improve their opportunity cost. This way, all benefit. I was the assistant manager at a swim club. It was my duty as well as the other assistant manager to vacuum the pool when it was dirty. I was extremely fast at doing this, so I had the absolute advantage as I could finish the whole pool quicker than they could do half. I was not as good when it came to membership information, so the other manager had a better opportunity cost when they were put on membership duty. I had the absolute and comparative advantage on vacuuming, and they had both on membership, so we stuck to what we offered more value in and did not do the other job often.