🏷️ LIMITED TIME OFFER: GET 20% OFF GRADE+ YEARLY SUBSCRIPTION →
Log in
Economics
1
answer
0
watching
628
views
3 Nov 2020

13. Some argue that a nation should not depend too heavily on other countries for supplies of certain key products that might have national security applications. This comes under __________________________________ of restricting imports.

a. infant industry argument

b. national interest argument

c. the unsafe consumer products argument

Booster class
Microeconomics
Skill
Discusssing the Arguments in Support of Restricting Imports
Watch
1
answer
0
watching
628
views

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

Raushan Raj
Raushan RajLv8
3 Nov 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

30. The main point of Frederic Bastiat's satire is that:
A. French candle makers would benefit from government restrictions on trade
B. French soybean farmers would benefit from a tariff on U.S. soybeans
C. The arguments in favor of trade protectionism are sometimes ridiculous
D. The arguments in favor of trade protectionism are sometimes well-intended.
31. People demand some money for precautionary reasons mostly because they are:
a. reacting to government policies.
b. risk averse
c. not worried about future uncertainty.
d. concerned about future interest rates.
e. all of the above.
32. If an economy is experiencing recession, the FED should:
a. raise the discount rate.
b. buy government bonds.
c. sell government bonds
d. raise the reserve ratio
e. raise margin requirements
33. If an economy is experiencing inflation, the FED should:
a. raise the discount rate
b. lower the reserve ratio
c. buy government bonds
d. all of the above
e. none of the above
34. FED policy is intended to have an initial short run impact on:
a. Aggregate Supply.
b. Aggregate Demand.
c. Government Purchases.
d. Consumption.
e. all of the above.
35. Which of the following would lead to an increase in the transactions demand for money?
a. an increase in the rate of return on stocks and other financial assets.
b. a reduction in the real interest rate.
c. an increase in the government’s national debt.
d. an increase in consumers’ incomes.
e. all of the above.
36. Which of the following is a relevant question today about the Fed?
a. Should it be audited?
b. Who owns it?
c. Is it still relevant?
d. All of the above
37. If the reserve ratio is 5 percent, the simple money multiplier is:
a. 5
b. 10
c. 15
d. 20
e. 25
38. Use the correct answer from question 37 above to determine how much the money supply could
change if the Fed buys $1,000 in government bonds.
a. It will increase by 20,000
b. It will increase by 25,000
c. It will decrease by 10,000
d. It will decrease by 20,000
e. None of the above.
39. The asset demand for money is a function of:
a. income.
b. government transfer payments.
c. anticipated emergencies.
d. FED monetary policy.
e. the prevailing interest rate.
40. The new tariffs on aluminum and steel imposed by the Trump Administration are based on which argument for protection:
a. the infant industry argument
b. the military self sufficiency argument
c. the cheap labor argument
d. the dumping argument
e. any of the above could be correct

6. Alpha can produce either 18 oranges or 9 apples an hour, while Beta can produce either 16 oranges or 4 apples an hour. The opportunity cost of producing 1 orange for Alpha and Beta, respectively, are:

A. 0.25 apples; 0.5 apples.

B. 9 apples; 4 apples.

C. 0.5 apples; 0.25 apples.

D. 2 apples; 4 apples

10. The infant industry argument for protectionism suggests that an industry must be protected in the early stages of its development so that:

A. firms will be protected from subsidized foreign competition.

B. domestic producers can attain the economies of scale to allow them to compete in world markets.

C. there will be adequate supplies of crucial resources in case they are needed for national defence.

D. it will not be subjected to a takeover from a foreign competitor.

13. The race to the bottom scenario of global environmental degradation is explained roughly like this:

A. Companies seek to reduce their costs of operations on plant and equipment design and this results in higher levels of pollution.

B. Companies seek the lowest market prices on products in order to gain market share, resulting in inferior goods and increased waste and pollution.

C. Profit-seeking multinational companies shift their production from countries with strong environmental standards to countries with weak standards, thus reducing their costs and increasing their profits.

D. Companies seek to influence environmental legislation standards are set to the lowest possible standards in the USA in order to maximize profits.

17. If 112 Japanese yen purchased $1.00 U.S. in 2008 and 83 Japanese yen purchased $1.00 U.S. in 2009, then

A. the dollar depreciated against the yen

B. the dollar appreciated against the yen

C. the yen depreciated against the dollar

D. the yen weakened against the dollar

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