Trade restrictions will stop foreign imports, which will increase American employment and protect American jobs. Most economists realize this argument is wrong. Can you explain why?

answer

watching

227

views

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

You have 0 free answers left.
Get unlimited access to 3.8 million step-by-step answers.

Get unlimited access

Already have an account? Log in

Mahe AlamLv10

30 Sep 2019

Unlock all answers

Get 1 free homework help answer.

Already have an account? Log in

Related questions

How can two countries both be better off as a result of trade? How can tariffs protect U.S. jobs? Do tariffs lead to a net increase in jobs? Explain. Who are the winners and losers from trade restrictions? Given that trade restrictions impose losses on an economy, why are trade restrictions so common?

blushgoat823

Suppose there is a policy debate regarding the United States imposing trade restrictions on imported steel rods:

Domestic producers of steel rods send a lobbyist to the U.S. government to request that the government impose trade restrictions on imports of steel rods. The lobbyist claims that the U.S. steel-rod industry is new and cannot currently compete with foreign firms. However, if trade restrictions were temporarily imposed on steel rods, the domestic steel-rod industry could mature and adjust and would eventually be able to compete in the world market.

Which of the following justifications is the lobbyist using to argue for the trade restriction on steel rods?

Jobs argument

National-security argument

Infant-industry argument

Using-protection-as-a-bargaining-chip argument

Unfair-competition argument

ceruleanlouse567

1. A government limit on the quantity or total value of imports of a specific product is known as which of the following?

A.An import quota

B.An export subsidy

C.A protective tariff

D.An excise tax

2. Suppose there is a policy debate over whether the United States should impose trade restrictions on imported semiconductors:

A congresswoman from a state with several semiconductor factories explains that it is necessary to impose trade restrictions, such as a tariff, on the semiconductor industry to protect workers in the domestic semiconductor industry. The congresswoman claims that without trade protection, there will be layoffs, causing many U.S. workers in the semiconductor industry to be unemployed.

Which of the following justifications is the congresswoman using to argue for the trade restriction on semiconductors?

A.National-security argument

B.Unfair-competition argument

C.Saving-domestic-jobs argument

D.Using-protection-as-a-bargaining-chip argument

E.Infant-industry argument