Globalization must be expected to influence the distribution of income as well as its level. So far as the distribution of income between countries is concerned, standard theory would lead one to expect that all countries will benefit. Economists have long preached that trade is mutually beneficial, and most of us believe that the experience of widespread growth alongside rapidly growing trade in the postwar period serves to substantiate that. Similarly most FDI goes where a multinational has intellectual capital that can contribute something to the local economy, and is therefore likely to be mutually beneficial to investor and recipient. And a flow of capital that finances a real investment is again likely to benefit both parties, since the yield on the investment is expected to be higher than the rate of interest the borrower has to pay, while that rate of interest is also likely to be higher than the lender could expect at home since otherwise there would have been no incentive to send it abroad. Loose talk about free trade making the rich countries richer and poor countries poorer finds no support in economic analysis.
Answer:
<em>Line-item veto</em>
<em></em>
Explanation:
President Bill Clinton's use of authority granted to him by congress to veto a portion of the budget that provided preferential Medicaid treatment of New York is known as the Line-item veto or the partial veto.
The line-item veto is a special form of veto power that authorizes a chief executive, head of state or president <em>to</em> <em>reject certain provisions of a bill enacted by a legislature without vetoing the entire bill.</em>
Canada exports two-thirds of its oil to the United States
More generally, this means that a country declares itself to be on NEITHER side of some conflict.
Some historical examples were the US in 1793 when it declared itself neutral in the conflict between France and Great Britain
