Log in
Economics
2
answers
0
watching
90
views

  1. What are some of the gains from economic integration and globalization which serve to justify the continuance of these trends?
  2. What are some of the key problems that are generated from the widening gap between the have's and the have-nots of the world?
  3. How should a serious examination of the global economic system address these problems?

Watch
2
answers
0
watching
90
views

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

Unlock all answers

Get 1 free homework help answer.
Already have an account? Log in
Share
Nusrat Fatima
Nusrat FatimaLv10
28 Sep 2019
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

While referring to the "EYE on YOUR LIFE" section on page 467 of the textbook, consider the trade policies that serve our self-interests and what best serves the global social interests. Base your answer on the economic concepts you have learned in this course.

For example, as U.S. consumers, we are the "winners" in globalization, which has brought iPods, Wii games, Nike shoes, and a wide range of other products to our shops at low prices. However, the big "losers" of globalization include the U.S. textile workers and furniture makers whose jobs disappeared overseas. Other "losers" include the African farmers whose crops were blocked by trade restrictions and subsidies in the United States and Europe.

What global social interests or responsibilities, if any, do we have as consumers to the losers of globalization? Discuss and justify your postings and responses with other students in our course.

While referring to the "EYE on YOUR LIFE" section on page 467 of the textbook, consider the trade policies that serve our self-interests and what best serves the global social interests. Base your answer on the economic concepts you have learned in this course.

For example, as U.S. consumers, we are the "winners" in globalization, which has brought iPods, Wii games, Nike shoes, and a wide range of other products to our shops at low prices. However, the big "losers" of globalization include the U.S. textile workers and furniture makers whose jobs disappeared overseas. Other "losers" include the African farmers whose crops were blocked by trade restrictions and subsidies in the United States and Europe.

What global social interests or responsibilities, if any, do we have as consumers to the losers of globalization? Discuss and justify your postings and responses with other students in our course.

Hello, could I get some assistance with this question? Thank you.

Read the articles and discuss the problems of Economic Inequality in the U.S.economy, summarize key points and post in the Discussions area:

3) Inequality. On important but irrelevant facts

http://www.economist.com/blogs/freeexchange/2014/01/inequality-0?zid=293&ah=e50f636873b42369614615ba3c16df4a

Here is the article:

Inequality

On important but irrelevant facts

Should we care more about global or national inequality?

Free exchange

Jan 9th, 2014

by R.A. | LONDON

WRITING on Thomas Piketty's new book, Nicolas Goetzmann notes:

I think that Piketty missed something which might be important: Capital is mobile, workers are not, and in the end, we have this: Gini is reducing on a worldwide basis since 2005.

Scott Sumner adds:

I also like Goetzmann's comment about global Gini coefficients. Liberals should care about global welfare. Are they closet nationalists?

These sorts of remarks are common responses to those pointing out that inequality is soaring across the rich world, and they strike me as very problematic.

It is true, of course, that inequality globally has been falling. And it is absolutely right to say that this trend is hugely important and is contributing to a massive rise in global welfare. We should all be ecstatic about it. But in no way does that development excuse us from caring about and worrying about national income inequality, for a few very important reasons.

The first is that it implies, without ever making an actual argument, that efforts to reduce income inequality within rich economies must necessarily slow reductions in global inequality. Why bring up the global statistic unless you are worried that expressions of concern about national inequality are likely to undermine the global trend? Some egalitarian-minded policies might, of course, but many others would not. I'm not sure why someone would want to stake out the position that subsidized pre-school for disadvantaged children is unnecessary, for example, because global inequality is falling.

Second, while we all should care about welfare globally, we should also recognize that the political salience of the issue is exclusively national. To a first approximation, America's Congress does not care in the least about the status of global inequality. There are no sitting congresspersons from Burundi. National inequality, by contrast, is highly politically relevant. Catch-up in the emerging world has a lot to do with innovation and openness in the rich world. If soaring national inequality undermines political support for policies that facilitate innovation and openness, that's a problem for everyone. It's a pretty basic political economy point that globalization will continue while national polities feel that globalization is broadly in their interest. People who like globalization should therefore be very, very concerned when it doesn't appear to be generating broad-based growth in rich countries.

The third is that inequality is growing within emerging markets. One might be inclined to argue that we shouldn't worry too much about that, since rising inequality is a classic side-effect of rapid development which should go away as emerging economies mature. But one of the most important points in Mr. Piketty's book is that the conventional wisdom that development naturally increases and then reduces inequalities is wrong: the data show that there is no systematic tendency for inequality to fall as an economy matures.

And so we should note that the backlash to globalization and development might well come from within emerging markets, and indeed one would have to be fairly cut-off from the news to miss populist expressions of dissatisfaction across the biggest emerging economies over the past couple of years. What's more, Mr. Piketty's work suggests that as the process of catch-up slows inequality trends within countries will begin to dominate inequality trends across countries, leading global inequality to rise once more.

So yes, global inequality has been falling. That is no reason for people of any ideological persuasion to ignore very worrying trends in national distributions of income and wealth.

Weekly leaderboard

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