🏷️ LIMITED TIME OFFER: GET 20% OFF GRADE+ YEARLY SUBSCRIPTION →
Log in
Economics
6
answers
0
watching
205
views
29 Nov 2018

Read The Economist's articles, "Barriers to entry: A rise in protectionism would worsen the already grim outlook for world trade."

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?

Watch
6
answers
0
watching
205
views

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

Unlock all answers

Get 1 free homework help answer.
Already have an account? Log in
Share
Already have an account? Log in
Share
Already have an account? Log in
Share
Already have an account? Log in
Share
Already have an account? Log in
Share
Irving Heathcote
Irving HeathcoteLv2
29 Nov 2018
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

what you think for this ? do you agree or disagree and why ?

I don’t think it’s wise for nations to begin raising tariffs and increasing subsidies when we are faced with a global recession. If a smaller country raises tariffs on a good they are importing, it might not have that big effect on the global economy. However, if a country like China, Japan, United States etc. decide to raise tariffs on imports, it could lead to a global increase in the average tariffs. In the article “Barriers to entry: A rise in protectionism would worsen the already grim outlook for world trade,” it talks about the worldwide average for tariffs. In 1986 they average 26%. If the big economies of the world start increasing tariffs, the rest of the world will eventually follow, leading to a global increase on tariffs. A rise in the tariffs would slow down the global economy even more in the long run. In the article it mentions how trade has picked up immensely when tariffs are lower, and the world GDP was higher compared to when tariffs are increased because countries are more willing to trade. I think they’re still benefits to be gained from trade even when a global recession may be taking place. If tariffs are increased, countries might try to specialize in goods where they don’t have a comparative advantage in. Instead of trading for that good, they will try to produce it domestically. The opportunity cost of choosing to specialize in a good when they don’t have comparative advantage is using those resources elsewhere. Perhaps for producing a good they do have comparative advantage in. Also a decline in trade because of rising tariffs means firms wouldn’t be able to benefit from economies of scale.

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.”

I am not in favor of tariffs and quotas for a few reasons. Tariffs could hurt the economy of a country since it raises the cost of domestic producers which in result they have to sell less. They have to sometimes also eliminate jobs as well since there would be a loss in production due to the reduction of profit. If people are losing jobs then they are losing income which hurts other businesses as well since consumers impacted by job loss will spend less. As a result of all this, it impacts the economy of the country. After some research I found that the World Bank estimates that if barriers like tariffs were eliminated, the global economy would expand up to 830 billion dollars by 2015. Even though domestic and foreign producers benefit from quotas since they receive higher prices and less competition, it hurts consumers. If the demand of a certain product is high, yet if a quota is placed to limit the amount of the product that is being imported, then it is a disadvantage on the consumer’s part. I do understand the purpose of quotas which is to reduce the amount of competition between other markets, but being a consumer myself I would be against it.

Please comment on it.

Related Documents

ECON 110 Chapter Notes - Chapter 34: Export Restriction, Deadweight Loss, Customs War
pinkantelope920
ECO105Y1 Chapter Notes - Chapter 13: Comparative Advantage, Market Failure, Government Failure
orchidcamel574
Textbook Guide Economics: International Trade, Economic Equilibrium, Comparative Advantage
grayraven524

Weekly leaderboard

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