Nothing
QUESTIONS FOR FIRST TWO WEEKS—MODULE 1 (SEE SCHEDULE FOR DUE DATES)
1. It is argued that small countries tend to have more open economies than large ones. Is there any basis for this? What is the logic underlying this argument?
2. International trade arguments tend to prove trade is beneficial to all countries involved. However, there are many obstructions to trade. How can we reconcile these two facts?
3. There have been very large changes in the composition of world trade over the last 50 years or more. How would you explain these major changes over time?
4. It appears that over long periods of time the development of countries growth patterns and productivity rates tend to converge. What would you expect in the U.S versus China in these rates over the next twenty years?
1) Answer: Yes, small countries do not have enough resources to satisfy consumption needs and they also don't have large market to enable their industries to be beneficial to their own economy possibilities.
"natural" market for any given plant is a circle with a radius of n miles with the plant at its center.
Assuming that the production plants are located randomly throughout the country, then the probability that the typical circular market will encompass some foreign country is greater the smaller is the country.
2) Answer: For Benefits, Monetary gains to the respective country indulging in trade; more variety of goods available for consumers and Competition both at the international level as well as local level. For Obstructions, Local production may suffer, and local industries may be overshadowed by their international competitors.
(http://www.paggu.com/business/world-economy/why-international-trade-advantage-and-disadvantage/)
3) Answer: In the past fifty years, the global economy has changed rapidly, there have been four major changes: capital movements rather than trade have become the driving force of the global economy, production has become "uncoupled" from
1. It is argued that small countries tend to have more open economies than large ones. Is there any basis for this? What is the logic underlying this argument?
2. International trade arguments tend to prove trade is beneficial to all countries involved. However, there are many obstructions to trade. How can we reconcile these two facts?
3. There have been very large changes in the composition of world trade over the last 50 years or more. How would you explain these major changes over time?
4. It appears that over long periods of time the development of countries growth patterns and productivity rates tend to converge. What would you expect in the U.S versus China in these rates over the next twenty years?
1) Answer: Yes, small countries do not have enough resources to satisfy consumption needs and they also don't have large market to enable their industries to be beneficial to their own economy possibilities.
"natural" market for any given plant is a circle with a radius of n miles with the plant at its center.
Assuming that the production plants are located randomly throughout the country, then the probability that the typical circular market will encompass some foreign country is greater the smaller is the country.
2) Answer: For Benefits, Monetary gains to the respective country indulging in trade; more variety of goods available for consumers and Competition both at the international level as well as local level. For Obstructions, Local production may suffer, and local industries may be overshadowed by their international competitors.
(http://www.paggu.com/business/world-economy/why-international-trade-advantage-and-disadvantage/)
3) Answer: In the past fifty years, the global economy has changed rapidly, there have been four major changes: capital movements rather than trade have become the driving force of the global economy, production has become "uncoupled" from