answer

watching

views

olivetrout40Lv1

28 Sep 2019

1. One study has concluded that the tariff on imports of magic potions imposed by

Twilightia has raised real wages in its domestic industry that produces magic potions. Based on this

study, it has been suggested that tariffs be raised in all industries. Comment on wisdom of this

proposal.

answer

watching

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

Raushan RajLv8

28 Sep 2019

Unlock all answers

Get 1 free homework help answer.

Already have an account? Log in

Related questions

Background When you look at news reports of any kind, there can be a tendency to take them at face value, accepting what they tell us as the truth. This is usually a grave mistake. News typically moves quickly, with tight deadlines to get information and there is almost always a bias at play. Numbers are an easy way to manipulate the truth--and truth itself can be pretty flexible when it comes to human relationships. The value of the truth can also be flexible depending on your point of view. For example, in the second quarter of 2015, the U.S. dollar is strong--meaning it has a high value against foreign currency. Is this a good thing or a bad thing? If you're a consumer, it's generally a good thing in the short-term. It means items imported to the U.S. cost us less to buy. Go us! If you are a growing business that exports, it's a bad thing because your costs make it difficult to compete with locally produced goods in foreign markets. If you're traveling out of the country, it's good because the dollar goes farther. If you have a business that benefits from foreign tourism, it's bad because visitors have less money and may chose to go to other places where their money gives them more buying power.

find an article (you might try MSN Money or CNN Money or something similar) and then write at least 600 words. how strong the position the article takes is. Questions to consider include: What are the weaknesses to the article? How are numbers used effectively? What's missing? How are the numbers being used to disguise something?

ARTIcle

President Obama slapped a stiff 35% tariff on Chinese tires in 2009 after American companies complained about unfair competition. They said China was flooding America with tires at low prices making it tough for U.S. companies to compete. The tire tariff gradually waned, and finally ended in 2012. The tariff saved 1,200 U.S. tire jobs, which had been in sharp decline. And U.S. tire production rose after a major decline. "Over a thousand Americans are working today because we stopped a surge in Chinese tires," Obama said in his 2012 State of the Union address. But a study from the Peterson Institute of International Economics found that the tariffs cost Americans in many other ways. Americans paid more for tires. Some Chinese-made tires cost as much as 26% more -- rising on average to $39 per tire, from about $31. And U.S. tire makers, facing less competition from China, also raised prices on American-made tires 3.2%. According to Peterson's model, higher prices from the tire tariff cost Americans an extra $1.1 billion, which translated to an estimated 3,731 retail jobs lost. Plus, China fought back by imposing penalties on U.S. shipments of chicken parts. The Peterson study estimates that China's retaliation cost American chicken producers $1 billion in sales. "Tire safeguards did not change Chinese policies in a helpful way, nor did they boost U.S. employment," wrote Gary Hufbauer, a trade expert at Peterson, who authored the report. Indeed, the tariffs didn't bring the tire-making jobs back to previous levels -- a similar trend that's played out for the rest of U.S. manufacturing. But they did help to stem the job losses. In 2008, there were about 60,000 American workers making tires. Now, there are about 55,000. That's better than the low point reached in 2010 but not back to pre-tariff levels. Related: Trump's 35% tariff on companies: Easier said than done An Obama administration official, who requested anonymity, disputed some of the calculations and assumptions in the Peterson study. For instance, the official claimed tire prices did not go up by as much as the study claims. Hufbauer said no one until now had contested any of his analysis in the four years since it was published. He noted that the administration official didn't provide an alternative estimate for price changes. Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney criticized Obama for the tariffs in his 2010 book "No Apology." "President Obama's action to defend American tire companies from foreign competition may make good politics by repaying unions for their support of his campaign, but it is decidedly bad for the nation and our workers," Romney said. U.S. tire makers still applaud Obama's tariffs. Morry Taylor, CEO of Titan International, a U.S.-based tire company, is one of them. "He did what he should have done and he should have done more of it," says Taylor, who voted for Trump. His company has plants in Ohio, Wisconsin and Illinois (they also have operations in Brazil and Russia). Related: 3 ways Trump can go after China and Mexico Taylor argues that if the tariffs weren't put in place he might not have any business today to speak of. By 2012, Taylor still had 1,800 tire-making workers, about the same amount as before the tariffs. Today, however, his firm only has a little more than 900 workers. His problem today is what he describes as unfair competition from India, where firms make cheap tires and sell in the U.S. at prices he can't afford to sell at. He hopes Trump considers higher tariffs on tires, saying it would save jobs. To be clear, Obama wasn't trying to "bring back jobs" so much as protect the ones already in America, which he accomplished. Trump wants to bring manufacturing jobs back from other countries. Some trade experts believe that would be difficult task, since many of jobs overseas are low-skill positions and many U.S. manufacturing firms now want highly skilled employees. In any case, U.S. tire production recovered but didn't surge. Instead, U.S. tire imports from all other countries excluding China rose dramatically, Hufbauer found. In other words, the Chinese tire jobs didn't come to the U.S. -- they went to the next cheapest countries. In the end, Hufbauer argues the tariffs didn't make a difference. "The best thing about the tire tariffs is that they expire," Hufbauer wrote in 2012. CNNMoney (New York) First published January 3, 2017: 3:41 PM ET

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 ârules of originâ 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?

pearbuffalo387

One of the conditions under which price discrimination is profitable is:

ability to identify consumer types.

inability to resell the good.

differences in demand elasticities.

all of the statements associated with this question are correct.

Suppose that the demand in a particular industry is given by Q^d = 500 - 2P. When the market price in the industry is $50 per unit, total demand in the industry is _________. Furthermore, assume that the entire market consists of four firms that share the market equally. The HHI under these conditions is then

		225 units and 1,600.
		400 units and 2,500.
		225 units and 3,333.33.
		400 units and 10,000.

The industry elasticity of demand for gadgets is -2, while the elasticity of demand for an individual gadget manufacturer's product is -2. Based on the Rothschild approach to measuring market power, we conclude that

there is little monopoly power in this industry.

there is significant monopoly power in this industry.

the Herfindahl index for this industry is -2.

the Herfindahl index for this industry is 2.

The number of efficient plants compatible with domestic consumption of the refrigerator industry in Sweden is 0.7. Which of the following implications is (are) correct?

		In the absence of imports, the refrigerator industry in Sweden is monopolistic.
		The refrigerator industry in Sweden is perfectly competitive.
		The refrigerator industry in Sweden is monopolistically competitive.
		None of the statements associated with this question are correct.

The peak of the isoprofit curve has which of the following characteristics?

It is the point at which Monopoly profits are always achieved.

It is the point at which the isoprofit curve crosses the reaction function.

It is the point on the isoprofit curves associated with the highest profit.

It is the point on the isoprofit curves Cournot competitors can efficiently achieve collusion profits.

The ranking of industries by the four-firm concentration ratio usually, but not always, reveals the same pattern as ranking by HHI. When a discrepancy is found it is usually due to the following:

		The four-firm concentration indices contain data on only the largest four-firms, while the HHI are based on data for all firms in the industry.
		The HHI is based on squared market shares, while the four-firm concentration ratio is not.
		The four-firm concentration indices contain data on only the largest four-firms, while the HHI are based on data for all firms in the industry and the HHI is based on squared market shares, while the four-firm concentration ratio is not.
		The two indices are designed to measure two different attributes of markets