Answered: As a student of the subject “The…

As a student of the subject “The Contemporary World”, explain the reason why it is necessary for most, if not all, nations in the world to engage in diplomacy at all cos

Macroeconomics

13th Edition

ISBN:9781337617390

Author:Roger A. Arnold

Publisher:Roger A. Arnold

Chapter21: International Trade

Section21.1: International Trade Theory

Problem 2ST

See similar textbooks

Similar questions

Why is alliance very important in the Chinese economic agenda?
Why and when might a company wish to use a strategic alliance for international expansion?
(g) Explain how is the production structure (i.e. which goods are produced) affected in each country by opening up to trade. Is this consistent with the empirical evidence we observe in reality? How can this model be modified to produce a less stark result?
In what ways can cross-cultural communication aid in the ability to work in diverse, international groups?
As you may have heard, Russia decided to invade its neighbor, which has led to international condemnation (albeit not on all fronts). The EU, a former major importer of gas from Russai, went ahead with sanctions. Imagine, if you will, that the respective heads of state get together and try to negotiate a trade agreement to end sanctions. They each have three possible choices: (a) Maintain tariffs against the other nation (T); (b) Seek mediation from the WTO, which would implement an international trade agreement at a small cost (M); (c) Unilaterally remove tariffs (F). The payoff matrix is as given below. Is there a dominant strategy for either player? Find all the (pure strategy) Nash equilibria in the game. How would this change if, instead, the mediation is costless and yields a payoff of 50 to each nation (assuming mutually successful mediation) and a payoff of 0 (if the other nation chooses otherwise)? **
Suppose an economist develops an international trade model based on the assumption that there are only two countries and two goods. We can say that the model is worthless, since the actual world has many countries trading many goods. can be useful in the classroom, but has no use in the real world. can be useful only in situations involving two countries and two goods. can be useful in helping economists to understand the complex world of international trade involving many countries and many goods.
There are two countries in the world, A and B, which trade only two goods, shirts and pants. Under autarky, shirts are cheaper in Country A than in Country B, whereas the pants are more expensive in Country A. Suppose that the world price of shirts lies above the two countries' autarky prices. BothCountry A and Country B will only produce shirts when the opportunity to trade exists.Answer true, false, or uncertain. Please briefly explain your answer
Two countries, Alpha and Beta consider the construction of a bridge across a river that separates them. The bridge would increase commerce and trade in both countries. If they both contribute to the building of this bridge, then each receive a profit of $32 million. However, if they both fail to contribute, they are each left with a profit of just $30 million. If one country contributes and the other one does not, then the country that does not contribute is a “free rider” and will receive a profit of $35 million. The contributing player spends a lot of money building the bridge and is left with a profit of only $28 million. 5.1. Fill out the payoff matrix (below) for the game by including all the elements (players, their strategies, and their payoffs). 5.2. Assume the players do not cooperate. Solve the game for the Nash equilibrium (find out the strategy played by each player in equilibrium). What is the payoff each gets…
Use comparative advantage, two countries and two goods, to explain why every country can be better off from international trade.
When countries specialize based on their comparative advantage and trade with each other, how does it lead to gains from trade for both countries (even if one country has an absolute advantage in both goods)?
"Victory or defeat in wars always brings the same result: destruction, It’s pointless to become the leading economy in a sinking world." in a context of US-Sino tariff war that will potentially spur the global trade war. But apparently, US is only protecting her domestic industry from the Chinese aggressive invasion. Is it true there is no other choice? So will it be possible to have a middle ground? As an economist, what do you see from this conflict?
Germany and Vietnam could become trading partners. Germany has an absolute advantage in making LCD televisions, but Vietnam has a comparative advantage in making LCD televisions. Should Germany let Vietnam produce the televisions? What could be some benefits associated with your decision? What could be some costs?