This is tough to answer in 3-5 sentences, and tends to also be a heavy identifier of your possible political leanings. You'll have to apologize if some of mine leak out in the response, but this is a question we debate hotly more frequently than every 4 years.
In general, international trade can help increase the GDP and overall profits for US-based corporations. However, if all we do is export, and we don't import, other countries don't look favorably upon that and may heavily tax our goods to counter this.
I believe we do need to be thoughtful about the amounts and kinds of international trade that we engage in. For example, farming is always a hotly debated issue for international trade, in part because farmers in other countries with a dramatically lower cost of living OR farmers in countries with a favorable currency rate (exchange from their currency to our dollars gives them an advantage) can undercut our farmers here in the US, many of whom are already struggling.
There are also those who are worried that when we import produce from countries that have not outlawed pesticides we know are carcinogenic, for instance, this creates not only a disadvantage for US farmers, but also for consumers who may be concerned about health issues.
As another example of this, many countries outlawed import of US beef during the Mad Cow Epidemic. We in turn also placed bans on importing beef from the UK.
These are examples of why it's important to be thoughtful about trade, but there are certainly many others, including decline in production jobs within the US that have left cities like Detroit a ghost town (this was formerly the hub of our automotive industry production).
Answer:
$355 unfavorable
Explanation:
Budgeted supplies cost was [$1,860 + (635 frames x $ 11)] = ($1,860 + $6,985) = $8,845
Actual supplies cost was $9,200, so the variance was = budgeted cost - actual cost = $8,845 - $9,200 = $355 unfavorable
Since the actual supplies cost was higher than the budgeted supplies cost, then the variance must be unfavorable (because more money was spent than expected).
Answer:
If Jeff's wage rate rises, he decides to work more hours. From this, we can infer that for Jeff, the substitution effect is greater than the income effect - option C.
Explanation:
The substitution effect is stronger than the income effect in a case whereby the supply of labor increases as the wage rate increases .
On the other hand, when the supply of labor decreases as the wage rate increases, then the income effect is stronger than the substitution effect.
With regards to the scenario given in the question - with an increase in the wage rate, Jeff has decided to work more hours.
Thus, in the given case, it can be inferred that for Jeff, the substitution effect is greater than the income effect.
Therefore, the correct answer is option C.
With the straight line equation, we can assume y = household spending, x is the income earned monthly, and b would be the base amount spent per month ($1000). m = 1/2 of the income that is spent (additional spending).
Therefore our equation takes shape as follows:
y = 1/2($income) + $1000
Nah I don’t think the us really needs to trade with Canada
