If we use the Smithian Absolute advantage, can both countries gain? Why?Eventually, these countries can still trade, please explain Assuming that there are only two countries in the world, Indonesia and ROW (Rest of theWorld) which both produce Cloth (C) and Food (F) using labor as factor production. Thefollowing table shows the number of hours of work needed to produce one unit of C andF in both countries:Cloth (C)Food (F)Indonesia1 hour per meter2 hour per kgROW6 hour per meter3 hour per kg

Answered: If we use the Smithian Absolute…

If we use the Smithian Absolute advantage, can both countries gain? Why? Eventually, these countries can still trade, please explain

ENGR.ECONOMIC ANALYSIS

14th Edition

ISBN:9780190931919

Author:NEWNAN

Publisher:NEWNAN

Chapter1: Making Economics Decisions

Section: Chapter Questions

Problem 1QTC

See similar textbooks

Similar questions

Suppose there are two countries Japan and US and they produce two goods Computersand Cars. Japan has absolute advantage in both the goods? Can these two nations tradewith each other? Justify your answer with the help of a relevant theory of internationaltrade.
Consider an international trade model consisting of three countries X, Y, and Z. Suppose X uses domestically, sends of its production to Y, and sends of its production to Z. Suppose Y uses domestically, sends of its production to X, and sends of its production to Z. Suppose Z uses sends of its production to X and sends of its production to Y. Assume this is a closed Leontief model. of its production of its production of its domestic goods, If we know country Z produced 124 thousand units of goods, then country X produces country Y produces thousand units of goods. thousand units of goods and
When countries trade with each other, does it result in a gain for everybody?
"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?
Which of the below statements does NOT reflect the ideas expressed by the author Charles Wheelan in the chapter titled, "Trade and Globalization," in the book, Naked Economics: Undressing the Dismal Science? Group of answer choices A majority of U.S. jobs lost since 2000 have been to technology and not to China, Vietnam or Mexico. Nearly all theory and evidence suggest that the benefits of international trade far exceed the costs. Tariffs and other barriers to imports will bring manufacturing jobs back into the U.S., exactly as President Trump promised. Trade creates losers, like any kind of market.
Is it possible to have a comparative advantage without having any absolute advantages ? Yes or No
Why is the theory of absolute advantage incapable of explaining trade in the real world? Explain.
Why does the United States not have an absolute advantage in coffee?
Finally, Canada and Australia are both English-speaking countries with not-too dissimilar population sizes. However, Canada’s trade is twice as large as that of Australia’s. to what extent, does comparative advantage help explain this?
Which of the following best explains the concept of "Comparative Advantage" in international trade? a) A country should produce goods in which it has an absolute advantage and trade for those where it does not. b) A country should only export goods and import nothing to maintain a positive trade balance. c) A country should specialize in the production of goods for which it has the lowest opportunity cost compared to other countries. d) A country should diversify its production across various sectors to avoid dependence on a single export commodity.
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)? **
How does specialization and trade benefit both individuals and nations?