Answer:
Jobs argument
Explanation:
-The national-security argument states that some industries have to be protected by imposing tariffs to maintain the local production in case of a war.
-The unfair-competition argument says that the domestic market has to be protected when there is unfair competition because companies from other countries are subject to different regulations.
-Using-protection-as-a-bargaining-chip argument states that the threat of imposing a restriction can help to eliminate a restriction that was imposed by another country.
-Infant-industry argument says that new industries have to be protected because they don't have economies of scales that their competitors from others countries have.
-The jobs argument claims that the trade with other countries eliminates the local jobs.
According to this, the answer is that the senator is using the jobs argument to argue for the trade restriction on steel rods because he claims that it is necessary to impose those restrictions to protect the workers from losing their jobs.
1. Friedrich von Hayek------------Less government intervention gives people more economic freedom.
To Hayek, less government intervention implied more economic freedom. He trusted that when individuals are allowed to pick, the economy runs all the more proficiently. In the United States, the most grounded supporters of Hayek's thoughts were a gathering of business analysts at the University of Chicago. Known as the "Chicago School of Economics," this inexactly shaped, informal gathering of financial specialists was for the most part connected with free market libertarianism. The name alludes to financial specialists who got their tutoring in the Economics Department at the University of Chicago. To date, almost 50% of all Nobel Prizes in Economics have been won by analysts with connections to Chicago.
2. Milton Friedman---------Government should not control the money supply.
Milton Friedman saw the 1920s as years of indispensable and sustainable growth in the economy. Amid this period the Federal Reserve outstandingly extended the cash supply. This development was not reflected in an expansion in the normal cost level, on the grounds that fiscal powers were killed by simultaneous increments in efficiency.
3. John Maynard Keynes----------Government intervention is necessary for stability.
John Maynard Keynes made the hypothetical contentions for another kind of monetary system: government intervention used to smooth out the business cycle. Keynes died in 1946, yet his thoughts made the Keynesian school of financial aspects and prompted the improvement of macroeconomics. Keynes' belief system overwhelmed the financial worldview from 1945 until the late 1970s. As indicated by Keynes, free markets don't generally contain self-adjusting components; some of the time government intervention is important to limit downturns and advance development. He trusted that without state help, the blasts and busts in the business cycle could winding wild.
4. Adam Smith------------Competition is a regulatory force.
A market economy is a monetary framework in which people claim the greater part of the assets - land, work, and capital - and control their utilization through willful choices made in the commercial center. It is a framework in which the legislature assumes a little role. In this kind of economy, two powers - self-interest and competition - assume a critical job. The role of self interest and competition was depicted by financial specialist Adam Smith more than 200 years prior and still fills in as basic to our comprehension of how showcase economies work.
D. There is a maximum yearly contribution limit
The answer is "trade deficit would widen in that country".
A fixed exchange rate regime forces financial discipline on
nations and abridges price inflation. For instance, if a nation expands its
cash supply by printing more money, the expansion in cash supply would prompt price
inflation. Given fixed exchange rates, inflation would make the nation's
merchandise noncompetitive in world markets, while the costs of imports would
turn out to be more appealing in that nation. The outcome would be an
augmenting exchange shortage in the nation, with the nation bringing in more
than it sends out.
