Log in
Economics
1
answer
0
watching
149
views

Read the article found here, in which Bernie Sanders defends a bill that he has introduced that would allow for the import of pharmaceuticals into the U.S. from Canada. This would effectively force drug manufacturers to charge the same price for prescription drugs in the U.S. and Canada. In this problem,

you will assess one possible consequence of this legislation. Suppose that a drug that treats hepatitis C has a constant marginal cost to produce, equal to $1. The average variable cost of producing the drug is also $1. Suppose that demand for this drug is the same in both the United States and Canada and is given by 𝑃𝐷=2000. The drug's manufacturer still holds a patent on the drug and thus is effectively able to act as a monopolist. Initially, the U.S. forbids the import of the drug from Canada. This allows the drug's manufacturer to charge different prices in the U.S. and Canada. In Canada, the Canadian government manages a single payer healthcare system, which means that the Canadian government, in effect, makes all of Canada's purchases of healthcare on behalf of its citizens. This gives the Canadian government the ability to set the price of all healthcare products and services within its borders, including that of the hepatitis C drug. Suppose that the Canadian government requires the drug manufacturer to price at a marginal cost within Canada. In the U.S., drugs are priced in the market. This leaves the drug manufacturer is free to act as a monopolist in the United States.

a.) What price will the manufacturer charge in the U.S.?

b.) What quantity of the drug will be sold in the U.S., and what quantity of the drug will be sold in Canada?

c.) Compute the deadweight loss caused by the drug company's monopoly power in the U.S.

d.) Compute the drug manufacturer's total variable cost and total revenue.

e.) Now suppose that the U.S. allows imports of the drug from Canada, forcing the U.S. price and the Canadian price to be equal. If the Canadian government continues to impose marginal cost pricing, what will the manufacturer's total variable cost and total revenue be?

f.) Suppose that the drug company must pay a fixed cost of $500,000 to develop the hepatitis C drug before it can be manufactured and sold. Will it pay this cost if imports of the drug are restricted between the U.S. and Canada? Will it pay this cost if they are not?

g.) Explain why, in this scenario, the U.S. is providing a public good and Canada is free riding.

Watch
1
answer
0
watching
149
views

For unlimited access to Homework Help, a Homework+ subscription is required.

Chika Ilonah
Chika IlonahLv10
28 Sep 2019

Unlock all answers

Get 1 free homework help answer.
Already have an account? Log in
Share

Related textbook solutions

Principles of Economics
2nd Edition, 2017
Openstax
ISBN: 9781947172364
Principles of Macroeconomics
2 Edition,
Openstax
ISBN: 9781947172388
Principles of Microeconomics
2 Edition,
Openstax
ISBN: 9781947172340

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 “rules of origin” 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?

Dems, GOP talk up deficit reduction, but don't act

WASHINGTON (AP) — Liberals' loud objections to White House proposals for slowing the growth of huge social programs make it clear that neither political party puts a high priority on reducing the deficit, despite much talk to the contrary.

For years, House Republicans have adamantly refused to raise income taxes, even though U.S. taxes are historically low, and the Bush-era tax cuts were a major cause of the current deficit.

And now, top Democrats are staunchly opposing changes to Medicare and Social Security benefits, despite studies showing the programs' financial paths are unsustainable.

Unless something gives, it's hard to see what will produce the significant compromises needed to tame the federal debt, which is nearing $17 trillion.

"There's not much of an appetite for deficit reduction," said Bob Bixby of the Concord Coalition, which pushes for "responsible fiscal policy."

There might be a few small steps this year, he said, when the government again needs to raise its borrowing limit. But a "grand bargain" involving significant spending cuts and revenue increases seems unlikely, Bixby said.

He added, "It's a little depressing to hear the reactions to the president's budget, from both sides."

There was nothing surprising about Republican denunciations of Obama's proposed tax increases, which he wants to combine with spending cuts to reduce the deficit.

The newer wrinkle was the left's sharp criticism of his proposals to slow the growth in Medicare and Social Security benefits, provided Republicans agree to new revenues. Obama has offered Republicans such a deal before. But this month's budget proposal gave it a new imprimatur.

The group MoveOn.org said Wednesday that supporters "who are outraged at President Obama's proposal to cut Social Security benefits will protest and deliver petitions" this week.

Sen. Bernie Sanders, a liberal independent from Vermont, is leading a similar petition drive, opposing "any benefit cuts to Social Security, Medicare or Medicaid." The deficit, his letter says, "was primarily caused during the Bush years by two unpaid-for wars, huge tax breaks for the rich and a prescription drug program" for Medicare, funded through borrowing. He suggests that higher taxes on the wealthy are the fairest way to tackle the deficit.

Democrats cite several reasons to raise taxes on high-income households. Obama campaigned for such tax increases in 2008 and 2012 but accomplished them only partially with the "fiscal cliff" resolution of Jan. 1.

Major tax cuts in 2001 and 2003 played big roles in turning a federal budget surplus into soaring deficits, according to research by the Congressional Budget Office and others. And by many measures, the U.S. tax burden in near historic lows.

Households earning roughly the national median income paid, on average, 11.1 percent of their income in total federal taxes in 2009, the most recent year for such data. That's the lowest level in more than 30 years, the CBO says.

Nonetheless, House Republicans have placed their highest priority on refusing to raise income tax rates, effectively ranking it above all other goals.

"The president got his tax hikes on Jan. 1," House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, is fond of saying. It's a reference to the $620 billion in new revenues, over 10 years, that Republicans were unable to stop because of the "fiscal cliff" law, resolved on New Year's Day.

If it's easy to make a case for higher revenues, the same is true for slowing the growth of Social Security and Medicare benefits. For decades, studies have warned of approaching trouble in these popular but costly programs, as health care costs rise and baby boomers begin to retire.

"Both Medicare and Social Security cannot sustain projected long-run program costs under currently scheduled financing, and legislative modifications are necessary to avoid disruptive consequences for beneficiaries and taxpayers," the Social Security Administration says, summarizing findings by the two programs' trustees.

"The early detection light has been going on for a while, and there has been a failure to act," Social Security trustee Charles P. Blahous recently told a House panel. If lawmakers are to preserve the programs for future retirees, he said, they will have to accept much more "political pain" than officials endured during a 1983 overhaul that included "several extremely controversial measures."

Obama has proposed an often-discussed step, which deals with government accounting in general, not just entitlement programs. If Congress agrees to higher tax revenues, the president said, he would back a slower growth calculation for cost-of-living increases for Social Security benefits, plus higher Medicare premiums for higher-income seniors.

Interest groups have criticized both ideas. AARP calls the slower cost-of-living formula a "harmful change," and urges seniors to oppose it.

American voters can largely blame themselves when Congress is more talk than action on deficit reduction. Americans routinely say they want a smaller federal debt, but not at the cost of programs they hold dear — including Social Security and Medicare.

A CBS News poll in March found that most Americans want to cut spending and raise taxes to reduce the deficit. But 4 in 5 oppose cuts to Social Security or Medicare. And two-thirds are unwilling to have their own taxes raised in the name of deficit reduction.

When Pew Research asked which was more important — reducing the national debt or keeping Social Security and Medicare benefits as they are now — the public sided with safeguarding the benefits programs, 53 percent to 36 percent.

The deficit-spending partisanship continued Wednesday. On a party-line vote, House Ways and Means Committee Republicans passed a bill to protect Social Security recipients and investors in Treasury bonds if the government hits its borrowing limit and can't pay all its bills later this year. Democrats say if the federal government starts reneging on any obligations — even if it pays bondholders — financial markets will lose faith and the economy will tank.

Some Democrats fear a lose-lose situation if they support Obama's proposals. First, they could be attacked from the left for tweaking the programs that many Democrats see as their party's greatest legacy. And second, Republicans might accuse them of "raiding Medicare" in next year's congressional elections. That battle cry proved effective in 2010 after Obama's health care overhaul bill was passed.

Democrats call such tactics shamelessly hypocritical. Republicans, they note, have long called for reining in entitlement spending.

Boehner rebuked a top GOP campaign figure for hinting at a renewal of the "raiding Medicare" attacks. But Reince Priebus, the national Republican Party chairman, seemed eager to revive the question of whether Democratic trims to Medicare's costs amount to an unfair cut in benefits.

9. Read the AP article “Dems, GOP talk up deficit reduction, but don't act (Links to an external site.)” by C. Babington (Apr25’13).

a. What are the two basic ways of shrinking a budget deficit?

b. Which of your answers above are Republicans vehemently against? What are the potential negative economic effects of implementing this basic policy?

c. Which of your answers above are Democrats strongly opposed to? What are the potential negative economic effects of implementing this basic policy?

Weekly leaderboard

Home
Homework Help 3,900,000
Economics 400,000
Start filling in the gaps now
Log in