ECON 104 Lecture Notes - Lecture 3: Keremeos, Externality, Seal Hunting

35 views3 pages

peachkangaroo677

17 Oct 2014

School

Simon Fraser University

Department

Economics

Course

ECON 104

Professor

Vasyl Golovetskyy

For unlimited access to Class Notes, a Class+ subscription is required.

Document Summary

Let us think once more about the logic behind our conclusion that the free competitive market equilibrium yields an efficient allocation. In other words, the exchanges in such markets are voluntary. Nobody forces people to trade, and any trade (its volume and the price) happens only if there is consent of every participant in that trade. I cannot imagine an argument to support such trade. If somebody expected to be made worse off by trade, they would simply not trade. Conclusion: voluntary trade can only make the exchanging parties better off, i. e. , it is always a pareto improvement. If the parties to the trade are made better off by trade, they will consent to it. We expect the opportunities for any pareto improvement to be realized. It is in principle possible that taking a good from a person and giving it to another makes one person worse off.

Related Questions

The difference between a free trade area and a customs union is, in brief, that the first is politically straightforward but an administrative headache, while the second is just the opposite.

Consider first the case of a customs union. Once such a union is established, tariff administration is relatively easy: Goods must pay tariffs when they cross the border of the union, but from then on can be shipped freely between countries. A cargo that is unloaded at Marseilles or Rotterdam must pay duties there, but will not face any additional charges if it then goes by truck to Munich.

To make this simple system work, however, the countries must agree on tariff rates: The duty must be the same whether the cargo is unloaded at Marseilles, Rotterdam, or for that matter Hamburg because otherwise, importers would choose the point of entry that minimized their fees. So a customs union requires that Germany, France, the Netherlands, and all the other countries agree to charge the same tariffs. This is not easily done: Countries are, in effect, ceding part of their sovereignty to a supranational entity, the European Union.

This has been possible in Europe for a variety of reasons, including the belief that economic unity would help cement the post-war political alliance between European democracies.

But elsewhere these conditions are lacking. The three nations that formed NAFTA would find it very difficult to cede control over tariffs to any supranational body; if nothing else, it would be hard to devise an arrangement that would give due weight to U.S. interests without effectively allowing the United States to dictate trade policy to Canada and Mexico. NAFTA, therefore, while it permits Mexican goods to enter the United States without tariffs and vice versa, does not require that Mexico and the United States adopt a common external tariff on goods they import from other countries.

This, however, raises a different problem. Under NAFTA, a shirt made by Mexican workers can be brought into the United States freely. But suppose that the United States wants to maintain high tariffs on shirts imported from other countries, while Mexico does not impose similar tariffs. What is to prevent someone from shipping a shirt from, say, Bangladesh to Mexico, then putting it on a truck bound for Chicago?

The answer is that even though the United States and Mexico may have free trade, goods shipped from Mexico to the United States must still pass through a customs inspection. And they can enter the United States without duty only if they have documents providing that they are in fact Mexican goods, not trans-shipped imports from third countries.

But what is a Mexican shirt? If a shirt comes from Bangladesh, but Mexicans sew on the buttons, does that make it Mexican? Probably not. But if everything except the button were made in Mexico, it probably should be considered Mexican. The point is that administering a free trade area that is not a customs union requires not only that the countries continue to check goods at the border, but that they specify an elaborate set of ârules of originâ that determine whether a good is eligible to cross the border without paying a tariff.

As a result, free trade agreements like NAFTA impose a large burden of paperwork, which may be a significant obstacle to trade even when such trade is in principle free.

Question:

1. From this case, what is the main difference between a free-trade area and a customs union?

2. Why are rules of origin needed for a free-trade area? How might they be protectionist?

pearbuffalo387

100 word answer needed from the question and artile below.

Question:

Explain whether, and if so how, you would expect laws that prohibit the buying and selling of organs to affect the overall wellbeing of society.

Article: "Should there be a market in organs?"

Some years ago, a Boston newspaper reported the story of Susan Stephens, a woman whose son needed a kidney transplant. When the doctor learned that the mother's kidney was not compatible, he proposed a novel solution: If Stephens donated one of her kidneys to a stranger, her son would move to the top of the kidney waiting list. The mother accepted the deal and soon two patients had the transplant they were waiting for.

The ingenuity of the doctor's proposal and the nobility of the mother's act cannot be doubted. But the story raises many intriguing questions. If the mother could trade a kidney, would the hospital allow her to trade a kidney for an expensive, experimental cancer treatment that she could not afford otherwise? Should she be allowed to exchange her kidney for free tuition for her son at the hospital's mediacal school? Should she be able to sell her kidney so she can use the cash to trade in her old Toyota for a new Lexus?

In many countries, including Australia, it is illegal for a person to sell their organs. In essence, in the market for organs the government has imposed a price ceiling of zero. The result, as with any binding price ceiling, is the shortage of the good. The deal in the Stephens case did not fall under this prohibition because no cash exchanged hands.

Some countries, however, have illicit markets in organs. The World Health Organizations estimates that 10% of all organ transplants, including arount 15 000 kidneys each year, involve a patient from a rich country buying an illegal organ from a citizen of a poorer nation. The temptation to the world's poorest people to sell their 'spare' organs in high. A kidney can sell for around $1500 or more in the illegal trade. This may not sounds like much to you or me. But it can be many years income to a person living in dire poverty.

Some economists believe that there would be large benefits to allowing a free market in organs. People are born with two kidneys but they usually need only one. Meanwhile, a few people suffer from illnesses that leave them wiithout any working kidneys. Despite the obvious gains from trade, the current situation is dire. In Ausralia, the average wait for a kidney transplant is 3.8 years and there are up to 50 deaths a year from people on the waiting list because a kidney cannot be found. In Europe, on average, 12 people die each day waiting for an organ transplant. If those needing a kidney were allowed to buy one from those who have two, the price would rise to balance supply and demand. Sellers would be better off with the extra cash in their pockets. Buyers would be better off with the rgan they need to save their lives. The shortage of kidneys would disappear.

Such a market would lear to an efficient allocation of resources, but critics of this plan worry about fairness. A market for organs, they argue, would benefit the rich at the expense of the oor, because organs would then be allocated to those most willing and able to pay. But you can also question the fairness of the current system.Now, most of us walk around with an etra organ that we don't really need, while some of our fellow citizens are dying to get one. Is that fair?

ead The Economist's articles, "Obama to raise trade talk concerns with Merkel."

Do you think the reduction or elimination of tariffs and notariff barriers between the U.S. and the EU through the Trans-Atlantic Trade and Investment Partnership will increase demand for U.S. goods and services in Europe and make european goods and services cheaper for Americans? In the face of a global recession is it wise for nations to begin raising tariffs and increasing subsidies to domestic producers? Why or why not?

Each student replies to instructorâs initial discussion question with a substantive post (minimum 250 words). Your initial post as well as a response to two other classmates initial discussion question should be done by 11:59 PM Central Standard Time (CST) - Sunday evening.

February 9, 2015 3:05 am

Obama to raise trade talk concerns with

Merke

Shawn Donnan, World Trade Editor

Â©AFP

US President Barack Obama is expected to raise concerns about the pace of

trans

Atlantic trade

talks with Angela Merkel when the German chancellor visits Washington on Monday with US

officials fretting that supposedly reinvigorated negotiations are instead getting off to a false start.

Following the November appointment of Cecil

ia Malmstrom, the new European trade

commissioner, both sides pledged a âfresh startâ to talks over a

Trans

Atlantic Trade and

Investment Partnership

, or TTIP, that had been crawling along since beginning in July 2013.

But a senior US official told the Financial Times that Washington was disappointed with the

progress made in last weekâs round of formal negotiations, the first since the re

launch, and had

decided to press

its case with Ms Merkel on Monday and in European capitals in the coming

weeks.

That frustration was partly in evidence in Brussels last week. âThis weekâs round was

constructive, but we do need to see more, further concrete progress ... if we are to turn

this fresh

start into a reality,â the chief US negotiator, Dan Mullaney, told reporters on Friday as the

discussions wrapped up.

The US has in recent months been pressing the European Union to agree to exchange new offers

on the number of tariff

free goods

. Many see this as the easier part of the negotiations compared

with the more complex question of easing regulatory barriers to trade across the Atlantic.

Last year the US offered to eliminate tariffs on 88 per cent of goods traded between the two

economie

s, significantly lower than the 96 per cent put forward by the EU. But since then US

officials have been trying to improve their offer while also extracting more from the EU.

Liberalisation of services is another bone of contention for Washington, which is

irked that the

EU has refused to offer a similar package to that negotiated with Canada in a recently concluded

trade agreement.

The decision to raise the issue with Ms Merkel did not reflect any conflict between the German

chancellor and Mr Obama over TT

IP, the official said. Washington remains convinced she

supports the trans

Atlantic talks, in spite of

scepticism

among many Germans.

The concerns were instead focused on EU officials and the European Commission, the senior US

official said, and whether officials in Brussels were meeting their leadersâ desire for

more rapid

progress

. David Cameron, the UKâs prime minister, last year called for ârocket boostersâ to be

placed und

er the talks.

Two senior EU trade officials on Sunday dismissed the US concerns as âspinâ and told the FT

that they hoped to exchange new tariffs and services offers by July.

The EU officials also said that there had been progress in discussions over the i

nclusion of

financial services regulation in TTIP, something the US side has resisted in part because of fears

that it might water down the strict Dodd

Franck regulations introduced in the wake of the 2008

crisis.

But the disagreement highlights how tensio

ns remain between both sides despite efforts to make

a fresh start.

European officials have also privately raised concerns that Mr Obamaâs administration is more

focused on sealing a 12

country Pacific Rim trade agreement now nearing conclusion, the Trans

Pacific Partnership, or TPP, than the trans

Atlantic one.

Speaking at a security conference in Munich on Saturday, Vice President Joe Biden sought to

placate the EU. âTTIP is not the stepchild to TPP,â the vice president

said

âWe have not taken our focus off of Europe. We have not decide

d that the future lies in the

Pacific Basin. We are a Pacific power. We will assert that power, and we will remain a Pacific

power. But we are also an Atlantic power.â

ECON 104 Lecture Notes - Lecture 3: Keremeos, Externality, Seal Hunting

Document Summary

Get access

Related Documents

ECON 104 Lecture 4: Chapter 4

ECON 104 Chapter Notes - Chapter 3: Pareto Efficiency, Allocative Efficiency, Economic Surplus

ECON 104 Lecture 3: Assignment #3

Related Questions