🏷️ LIMITED TIME OFFER: GET 20% OFF GRADE+ YEARLY SUBSCRIPTION →
Log in
Economics
1
answer
0
watching
110
views

We talked in class about free trade areas, customs unions and common markets. We also discussed basic principles of the WTO, including trade should not be discriminatory and should head in the direction of fewer rather than more barriers. And finally we discussed the welfare impacts of tariffs and other trade barriers on a country, including consumers, producers and government. Suppose three countries US ($8), Mexico ($6) and China ($4) make a good at the prices in parenthesis. Now consider the following alternative scenarios:

· Scenario 1: The current tariff rate is $5

a. If there are no free trade arrangements, from which country’s producers will US consumers buy the product? (1 point)

b. If we now signed NAFTA, from which country’s producers will US consumers buy the product? (1 point)

c. Are US consumers and the country as a whole better off or worse off with NAFTA and why? (1 point)

· Scenario 2: The current tariff rate is $3

d. If there are no free trade agreements, from which country’s producers will US consumers buy the product? (1 point)

e. If we now signed NAFTA, from which country’s producers will US consumers buy the product? (1 point)

f. Are US consumers and the country as a whole better off or worse off with NAFTA and why? (1 points)

g. What is the difference in the two scenarios? What does that tell you about the impact of free trade agreements? (2 points)

Watch
1
answer
0
watching
110
views

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

Joshua Stredder
Joshua StredderLv10
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?

The largest corporation based in the United States is:

A) General Motors.
B) ExxonMobil.
C) General Electric.
D) Microsoft.

2.

Service exports from the United States equal _____ per year.

A) less than $100 billion
B) approximately $250 billion
C) less than $350 billion
D) approximately $500 billion

3.

In addition to agricultural products and manufactured goods, the United States is also the world's largest exporter of:

A) processed and packaged foods.
B) pharmaceuticals.
C) electronics.
D) business services and retailing.

4.

Before entering a country, marketers need to determine if the country has the required _____ to support their marketing efforts.

A) moral code
B) legal system
C) infrastructure
D) trade bodies

5.

In order for a marketer to operate efficiently in a foreign country, it is crucial that a stable _____ be in place to facilitate trade.

A) free trade agreement
B) tariff
C) infrastructure
D) labor force

6.

Which of the following is not a trade barrier to an exporter?

A) Tariffs
B) Import quotas
C) Subsidies
D) Related party trade

7.

A complete ban on the import of a product is known as a(n):

A) import quota.
B) embargo.
C) revenue tariff.
D) protective tariff.

8.

Exchange control is an administrative barrier to international trade that:

A) requires companies that export to sell foreign currencies to the central bank or other foreign agency, and importers to buy foreign currencies from the same organization.
B) supports domestic industry through grants of money or research support.
C) completely bans the importation of a product.
D) sells products in a foreign market cheaper than they are sold domestically.

9.

When a group of nations agree to the free trade of goods among themselves by abolishing tariffs and trade restrictions, the nations have created a:

A) common market.
B) customs union.
C) trading block.
D) free-trade area.

10.

Which of the following is not an objective of the European Union(EU)?

A) eventually remove all trade barriers to free trade among its members.
B) standardize currencies and regulations between member nations.
C) promote the basic tenets of the WTO and GATT treaty.
D) eventually evolve into an independent political entity.

11.

An organization that provides first-time exporters with expertise in locating foreign buyers, handling paperwork, and conforming to local labeling and testing laws is called a(n):

A) export facilitator.
B) export title company.
C) trade assistance corporation.
D) export management company.

12.

McDonald

ead The Economist's articles, "Obama to raise trade talk concerns with Merkel."

Do you think the reduction or elimination of tariffs and notariff barriers between the U.S. and the EU through the Trans-Atlantic Trade and Investment Partnership will increase demand for U.S. goods and services in Europe and make european goods and services cheaper for Americans? In the face of a global recession is it wise for nations to begin raising tariffs and increasing subsidies to domestic producers? Why or why not?

Each student replies to instructor’s initial discussion question with a substantive post (minimum 250 words). Your initial post as well as a response to two other classmates initial discussion question should be done by 11:59 PM Central Standard Time (CST) - Sunday evening.

February 9, 2015 3:05 am

Obama to raise trade talk concerns with

Merke

l

Shawn Donnan, World Trade Editor

©AFP

US President Barack Obama is expected to raise concerns about the pace of

trans

-

Atlantic trade

talks with Angela Merkel when the German chancellor visits Washington on Monday with US

officials fretting that supposedly reinvigorated negotiations are instead getting off to a false start.

Following the November appointment of Cecil

ia Malmstrom, the new European trade

commissioner, both sides pledged a “fresh start” to talks over a

Trans

-

Atlantic Trade and

Investment Partnership

, or TTIP, that had been crawling along since beginning in July 2013.

But a senior US official told the Financial Times that Washington was disappointed with the

progress made in last week’s round of formal negotiations, the first since the re

-

launch, and had

decided to press

its case with Ms Merkel on Monday and in European capitals in the coming

weeks.

That frustration was partly in evidence in Brussels last week. “This week‘s round was

constructive, but we do need to see more, further concrete progress ... if we are to turn

this fresh

start into a reality,” the chief US negotiator, Dan Mullaney, told reporters on Friday as the

discussions wrapped up.

The US has in recent months been pressing the European Union to agree to exchange new offers

on the number of tariff

-

free goods

. Many see this as the easier part of the negotiations compared

with the more complex question of easing regulatory barriers to trade across the Atlantic.

Last year the US offered to eliminate tariffs on 88 per cent of goods traded between the two

economie

s, significantly lower than the 96 per cent put forward by the EU. But since then US

officials have been trying to improve their offer while also extracting more from the EU.

Liberalisation of services is another bone of contention for Washington, which is

irked that the

EU has refused to offer a similar package to that negotiated with Canada in a recently concluded

trade agreement.

The decision to raise the issue with Ms Merkel did not reflect any conflict between the German

chancellor and Mr Obama over TT

IP, the official said. Washington remains convinced she

supports the trans

-

Atlantic talks, in spite of

scepticism

among many Germans.

The concerns were instead focused on EU officials and the European Commission, the senior US

official said, and whether officials in Brussels were meeting their leaders’ desire for

more rapid

progress

. David Cameron, the UK’s prime minister, last year called for “rocket boosters” to be

placed und

er the talks.

Two senior EU trade officials on Sunday dismissed the US concerns as “spin” and told the FT

that they hoped to exchange new tariffs and services offers by July.

The EU officials also said that there had been progress in discussions over the i

nclusion of

financial services regulation in TTIP, something the US side has resisted in part because of fears

that it might water down the strict Dodd

-

Franck regulations introduced in the wake of the 2008

crisis.

But the disagreement highlights how tensio

ns remain between both sides despite efforts to make

a fresh start.

European officials have also privately raised concerns that Mr Obama’s administration is more

focused on sealing a 12

-

country Pacific Rim trade agreement now nearing conclusion, the Trans

-

Pacific Partnership, or TPP, than the trans

-

Atlantic one.

Speaking at a security conference in Munich on Saturday, Vice President Joe Biden sought to

placate the EU. “TTIP is not the stepchild to TPP,” the vice president

said

.

“We have not taken our focus off of Europe. We have not decide

d that the future lies in the

Pacific Basin. We are a Pacific power. We will assert that power, and we will remain a Pacific

power. But we are also an Atlantic power.”

Weekly leaderboard

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