Log in
Economics
1
answer
0
watching
90
views

When economists talk about the gains from trade, they mean that:  a.No one ever gets hurt by trade  b. The benefits of trade outweigh the losses .c.  business firms benefit from trade but not necessarily individuals.  d. Trade increases government revenue through taxes on imports.

Watch
1
answer
0
watching
90
views

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

Paramjeet Chawla
Paramjeet ChawlaLv8
30 Sep 2020

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

1. We can conclude that international trade is beneficial because, regardless of whether the country imports or exports a good, the overall increase in well-being outweighs the losses associated with trade.

Is the statement true or false?

2. Owners of firms in young industries should be willing to incur temporary losses if they believe that those firms will be profitable in the long run.€ This observation helps to explain why many economists are skeptical about the:

a. Unfair-competition argument.

b. Infant-industry argument.

c. national-security argument.

d. Jobs argument

3. Suppose that the U.S. has a comparative advantage in the production of spreadsheet software. As a result of opening up the market to international trade:

a. U.S. citizens benefit from lower software prices, increasing consumer surplus in the market.

b. U.S. producers benefit from higher software prices, increasing producer surplus in the market.

c. U.S. software producers are harmed since the price that these producers receive will decline as the price falls to the world price.

d. total surplus in this market will remain unchanged, as the decline in benefits received by software producers exactly balances the increase in benefits received by US software consumers.

Question 6: Which of the following economic goals focuses on equal opportunities for education? (5 points)

-Equity

-Freedom

-Growth

-Security

Question 7: Marcel takes out student loans and works part-time to put himself through college. In time, he earns an advanced medical degree and goes to work in an understaffed city -hospital. Marcel's economic decisions benefit the goal of efficiency by (5 points)

-making his own job

-related decisions

-paying back loans to reduce the debt

-contributing to the nation's productivity

-taking advantage of equal opportunities

Question 8: Two countries produce milk and dairy products efficiently. Neither has an absolute advantage. However, Country A exports milk to Country B, and Country A imports cotton from Country B. Which of the following is inferred? (5 points)

-The opportunity cost of producing milk is lower for Country A.

-The opportunity cost of producing cotton is higher for Country B.

-Country A has a natural resource advantage in cotton.

-Country B has a natural resource advantage in milk.

Question 9: Worker hours to produce one unit of natural gas; Worker hours to produce one unit of oil; Brazil 4 9; Argentina 2 10; Mexico 3 7; United States 1 6. According to the chart, which country has the comparative advantage in oil production? (5 points)

-Brazil

-Mexico

-Argentina

-United States

Question 10: The United States can manufacture books at a much more rapid pace than manufacturers in Indonesia. Which of the following is a reason? (5 points)

-Indonesia, as a developed country, has a highly paid and experienced workforce

-Indonesia, as a developing country, has a less advanced manufacturing infrastructure

-The United States, as a developing country, has a high comparative advantage in manufacturing.

-The United States, as a developed country, has a lower cost of living than Indonesia

Question 11: A group of nations establishes a free-trade zone. What is the most likely effect? (5 points)

-Cost of trade increases

-Exports decrease

-Imports decrease

-Trade increases

Question 12: The United States may have a tariff on cotton products from China in order to (5 points)

-prevent Chinese manufacturers from losing profit because of low prices

-protect the business of the American cotton growers and manufacturers

-stop trade due to political disagreement on economic policy

-promote sales in the United States of cotton products from China

Question 13: A Chinese international salesperson hoping to increase exports to the U.S. may worry about the inflation of the U.S. dollar because the inflation may (5 points)

-increase the United States' supply of Chinese products

-decrease tariffs on Chinese products sold to the United States

-increase taxes on the United States' products sold to China

-reduce the United States' demand for Chinese products

Question 14: How would a strong U.S. dollar impact the trade of grain produced in the United States? (5 points)

-U.S. grain exports decrease

-U.S. grain exports increase

-U.S. grain imports decrease

-U.S. grain imports stagnate

Question 15: Which of these can be a result of inflation? (5 points)

-Businesses grow cautious about spending

-The government has to cut spending

-The price of household items increases

-Workers benefit from a lower cost of living

Question 16: If the inflation rate increases faster than their income, people will most likely (5 points)

-use a higher proportion of their incomes on basic needs

-spend a lower proportion of their incomes on basic needs

-get more goods and services for less money

-obtain fewer goods and services for less money

Question 17: To increase your standard of living, your wages must (5 points)

-rise faster than the inflation rate

-rise more slowly than the inflation rate

-keep pace with the inflation rate

-have a negative inflation rate

Question 18: Look at the map showing the European Union (EU) and its free-trade agreement (FTA) countries. Which is true about most current EU free-trade agreements? (5 points)

-The European Union's free-trade agreements are with all of the most developed nations in the world.

-The European Union's free-trade agreements include agreements with both developed and developing nations.

-The European Union's free-trade agreements focus on nations with access to overland trade routes

-The European Union's free-trade agreements focus on the Southern Hemisphere, as distant countries have access to goods not grown in Europe.

Too Late to Compensate Free Trade’s Losers

CAMBRIDGE – It appears that a new consensus has taken hold these days among the world’s business and policy elites about how to address the anti­globalization backlash that populists such as Donald Trump have so ably exploited. Gone are the confident assertions that globalization benefits everyone: we must, the elites now concede, accept that globalization produces both winners and losers. But the correct response is not to halt or reverse globalization; it is to ensure that the losers are compensated.

The new consensus is stated succinctly by Nouriel Roubini: the backlash against globalization “can be contained and managed through policies that compensate workers for its collateral damage and costs,” he argues. “Only by enacting such policies will globalization’s losers begin to think that they may eventually join the ranks of its winners.”

This argument seems to make eminent sense, both economically and politically. Economists have long known that trade liberalization causes income redistribution

and absolute losses for some groups, even as it enlarges a country’s overall economic pie. Therefore, trade deals unambiguously enhance national wellbeing only to the extent that winners compensate losers. Compensation also ensures support for trade openness from broader constituencies and should be good politics.

Prior to the welfare state, the tension between openness and redistribution was resolved either by large­scale emigration of workers or by re­imposing trade protection, especially in agriculture. With the rise of the welfare state, the constraint became less binding, allowing for more trade liberalization. Today the advanced countries that are the most exposed to the international economy are also those where safety nets and social insurance programs – welfare states – are the most extensive. Research in Europe has shown that losers from globalization within countries tend to favor more active social programs and labor­market interventions.

If opposition to trade has not become politically salient in Europe today, it is partly because such social protections remain strong there, despite having weakened in recent years. It is not an exaggeration to say that the welfare state and the open economy have been flip sides of the same coin during much of the twentieth century.

Compared to most European countries, the United States was a latecomer to globalization. Until recently, its large domestic market and relative geographical insulation provided considerable protection from imports, especially from low­wage countries. It also traditionally had a weak welfare state.

When the US began opening itself up to imports from Mexico, China, and other developing countries in the 1980s, one might have expected it to go the European route. Instead, under the sway of Reaganite and market­fundamentalist ideas, the US went in an opposite direction. As Larry Mishel, president of the Economic Policy Institute, puts it, “ignoring the losers was deliberate.” In 1981, the “trade adjustment assistance (TAA) program was one of the first things Reagan attacked, cutting its weekly compensation payments.”

The damage continued under subsequent, Democratic administrations. In Mishel’s words, “if free­traders had actually cared about the working class, they could have supported a full range of policies to support robust wage growth: full employment,

collective bargaining, high labor standards, a robust minimum wage, and so on.” And all of this could have been done “before administering ‘shocks’ by expanding trade with low­wage countries.”

Could the US now reverse course, and follow the newly emergent conventional wisdom? Back in 2007, political scientist Ken Scheve and economist Matt Slaughter called for “a New Deal for globalization” in the US, one that would link “engagement with the world economy to a substantial redistribution of income.” In the US, they argued, this would mean adopting a much more progressive federal tax system.

Slaughter had served in a Republican administration, under President George W. Bush. It is an indication of how polarized the US political climate has become that it is impossible to imagine similar proposals coming out of Republican circles these days. The effort by Trump and his Congressional allies to emasculate former President Barack Obama’s signature health­insurance program reflected Republicans’ commitment to scaling back, not expanding, social protections.

Today’s consensus concerning the need to compensate globalization’s losers presumes that the winners are motivated by enlightened self­interest – that they believe buy­in from the losers is essential to maintain economic openness. Trump’s presidency has revealed an alternative perspective: globalization, at least as currently construed, tilts the balance of political power toward those with the skills and assets to benefit from openness, undermining whatever organized influence the losers might have had in the first place. Inchoate discontent about globalization, Trump has shown, can easily be channeled to serve an altogether different agenda, more in line with elites’ interests.

The politics of compensation is always subject to a problem that economists call “time inconsistency.” Before a new policy – say, a trade agreement – is adopted, beneficiaries have an incentive to promise compensation. Once the policy is in place, they have little interest in following through, either because reversal is costly all around or because the underlying balance of power shifts toward them.

The time for compensation has come and gone. Even if compensation was a viable approach two decades ago, it no longer serves as a practical response to

globalization’s adverse effects. To bring the losers along, we will need to consider changing the rules of globalization itself.

QUESTIONS:

a. According to Rodrik, why is it that "trade deals unambiguously enhance national wellbeing only to the extend that winners compensate losers?" Explain completely.

b. Rodrik draws a historical link between globalization and the "welfare state." Explain this link.

c. Rodrik mentions a previous proposal by Scheve and Slaughter called "A New Deal for Globalization." What was the essence of this proposal? What has become of it?

d. What is the "time inconsistency" problem and why is it relevant for Rodrik's argument?

e. In your opinion, what is one weakness in Rodrik's argument? Explain.

Weekly leaderboard

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