Xyz Pdq asked:


I asked this many times over before, but I have rethought and revised my next 100 years predictions:

here is how I see it now:

-we break our unconditional embargo with Cuba and relations between US and South America improve (within next few years)

-Kim Jong Il suffers fatal stroke in say, 8 years, and his successor will be slightly less insane and isolationalist. N. Korea will begin to cooperate with UN sanctions and slowly, relations between North and South Korea and Japan will get better. They will still be nuts, mind you, but the threat of N.Korea and their nuclear program to the world, especially Japan, will be reduced. Without that threat, Japan’s interest in the US will slightly diminish as part of our relationship with Japan is based on their defense from Dear Leader.

-Iraq settles down in terms of insurgency in next year or two, but will still flare up occasionally, much like, say, Lebanon now.

-Afghanistan becomes tough struggle for next 5-10 years but eventually Taliban and Al Qaida will be permanently diminished. US will have reclaimed some international credibility and respect and there will be a small decrease in anti-americanism in Europe and Mid-East.

-Japan and China compete economically, but China has internal issues. The difference in the economies of the poor, central chinese and the chinese of the industrialized cities will render China not as powerful in the global scheme as predicted by some analysts. Japan’s economy expands unchecked, at the forefrunt of the the technological industry. I say this in the next 10 to 20 years.

-At the same time, I predict that the next developing power will in fact be Mexico.

-Relations between Russia and United States becomes more strained over issues of Iran and on nuclear proliferation. (5-10 years)

-Iran covertly tries to develop nuclear (warhead) capabilities, not just civilian nuclear power. (big surprise there). This happens in next 5-10 years.

- In 5-10 years or so years, Israel does what it did to Saddam and to Syria: precision (conventional) air strike on nuclear facilities, i.e enriching, processing, etc. Iran’s nuclear program back to square 1. Iran vows revenge, condemns their actions, but is unable to do anything about it. Russia condemns Israel’s actions, as does UN and NATO. US also condemns Israel’s “rash” actions but still unconditionally supports Israel. Relations b/t Iran and Israel, degrade further, and US and Russian relationship is further strained.

-In next 5 years, global economic crisis will slowly return to normal. I predict a second crisis in about 25-30 years.

-Pakistan helps Iran rebuild nuclear capabilities covertly. We figure this out through our intelligence agencies and impose sanctions to no avail. (10-25 years from now.)

-India also condemns Pakistan and Iran. Slowly, from 20 to 30 years from now, there is an emergence of two main powers (alliances.)
1. B/t US, Israel, UK, France (but so what about the French), India, and China (b/c of its economic interests in US).
2. Iran, Pakistan, Russia, Mexico.

Cuba has become a non issue, as has North Korea, which no longer are pursuing nuclear warheads.

We will end up having a smaller cold war that will last for about 15-20 years. Very scary time when it seems like Iran and Israel will commence nuclear exchange (seems inevitable). Same issue b/t US and Russia.

Globe will at same time undergo a second economic crisis. Russia will be hit hard, and so will its trade partners, especially those interested in commodities, such as Japan. US will ride through and survive. The countries that survive economic crash will win the second cold war.

Russian Federation will dissolve into three or four separate states. Trying to not make the same mistake twice, NATO and UN will immediately step in and help protect against further nuclear proliferation. Efforts prove to be a success. Russia becomes far less powerful.

Without any real backing from Russia, whose power has greatly diminished, Iran will make a desperate move. Isolated with no real allies or supporters, Iran, if still caught up in a radical Islamic mindset like that of the Ayatollah and Ahmedinejad, will try to drop their entire, though meager,nuclear arsenal on Israeli cities such as Tel Aviv. Israel will, before the detonations, retaliate by unloading their entire arsenal on Iran, wiping it off the map, practically. Syria and Egypt and many neighboring countries of Israel will invade Israel in retaliation as of about 2075, and US will step in on their behalf. This will be Wold War III. US and Israel will fight off invaders, however, fallout and after effects of the Iranian nuke render much of Israel uninhabitable and there will be a mass exodus from Israel to the US, England, Australia, etc. Russia and Mexico will then intervene against US for helping Israel and there will be an all out war between US and Russia.
The Russian front will be fought in the air and in space, probably not by nuclear weapons as the theory of Mutually assured Destruction is still applicable. Throughout 21st century, I predict that space will be the new frontier for the military. Whoever has control of the immediate outer space will prevail. i predict this to be America and the russians will lose this frontier as they are already too weak from the second cold war and 2nd economic downturn.

War with Mexico will be by land and by air, a much more conventional style of warfare. The Mexicans will invade the US through Arizona and Texas and through a bitter struggle, eventually recapture a portion of the Southwestern United States. Although Mexico will have developed a space program, they will not be technologically advanced enough to fight a war in space like US and Russia. This advantage if the US will prove to end the 2nd Mex-Am War. The lines will be redrawn, with Mexico extending somewhat into Texas and Arizona.
Relations will be strained for a good 10-15 years between US and Mexico, but eventually they will improve. That will be the last great war for a while.

On a side note, By 2100, I predict climate change and environmental issues will be greatly reduced but not wholly cured by moving towards alternative energies: for power plants: nuclear power, and for cars: electricity.

someone_else asked:


I would love to hear from people representing all three of the participating countries.

From my perspective, I wonder about Canada’s natural resources such as water, and how I don’t want to see them sold to the USA as a commodity. Also, I don’t like American companies suing our government for protecting our citizens from harmful carcinogens and environmental pollutants. I would much rather see us work together as a community to support ourselves – buying locally (reducing the amount of gas spent on transportation, and also supporting our own farmers). We can start building our own businesses rather than depending on big American franchised eye-sores. Also, we would be ensuring jobs for our own people.

This is just my side. Please, by all means, explain why you think NAFTA is a good idea or a bad idea. Please give examples, and cite your sources (if making a statement of fact)

For more information on NAFTA, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_American_Free_Trade_Agreement

chosen2703 asked:


Modern analysis emphasizes that human beings are not “commodities”" or “resources”, but are creative and social beings that make contributions beyond ‘labor’ to a society and to civilization. The broad term human capital has evolved to contain some of this complexity, and in micro-economics the term “firm-specific human capital” has come to represent a meaning of the term “human resources.”

Advocating the central role of “human resources” or human capital in enterprises and societies has been a traditional role of socialist parties, who claim that value is primarily created by their activity, and accordingly justify a larger claim of profits or relief from these enterprises or societies. Critics say this is just a bargaining tactic which grew out of various practices of medieval European guilds into the modern trade union and collective bargaining unit.

A contrary view, common to capitalist parties, is that it is the infrastructural capital and (what they call) intellectual capital owned and fused by “management” that provides most value in financial capital terms. This likewise justifies a bargaining position and a general view that “human resources” are interchangeable.

A significant sign of consensus on this latter point is the ISO 9000 series of standards which requires a “job description” of every participant in a productive enterprise. In general, heavily unionized nations such as France and Germany have adopted and encouraged such descriptions especially within trade unions. One view of this trend is that a strong social consensus on political economy and a good social welfare system facilitates labor mobility and tends to make the entire economy more productive, as labor can move from one enterprise to another with little controversy or difficulty in adapting.

An important controversy regarding labor mobility illustrates the broader philosophical issue with usage of the phrase “human resources”: governments of developing nations often regard developed nations that encourage immigration or “guest workers” as appropriating human capital that is rightfully part of the developing nation and required to further its growth as a civilization. They argue that this appropriation is similar to colonial commodity fiat wherein a colonizing European power would define an arbitrary price for natural resources, extracting which diminished national natural capital.

The debate regarding “human resources” versus human capital thus in many ways echoes the debate regarding natural resources versus natural capital. Over time the United Nations have come to more generally support the developing nations’ point of view, and have requested significant offsetting “foreign aid” contributions so that a developing nation losing human capital does not lose the capacity to continue to train new people in trades, professions, and the arts.

An extreme version of this view is that historical inequities such as African slavery must be compensated by current developed nations, which benefitted from stolen “human resources” as they were developing. This is an extremely controversial view, but it echoes the general theme of converting human capital to “human resources” and thus greatly diminishing its value to the host society, i.e. “Africa”, as it is put to narrow imitative use as “labor” in the using society.

In the very narrow context of corporate “human resources”, there is a contrasting pull to reflect and require workplace diversity that echoes the diversity of a global customer base. Foreign language and culture skills, ingenuity, humor, and careful listening, are examples of traits that such programs typically require. It would appear that these evidence a general shift to the human capital point of view, and an acknowledgement that human beings do contribute much more to a productive enterprise than “work”: they bring their character, their ethics, their creativity, their social connections, and in some cases even their pets and children, and alter the character of a workplace. The term corporate culture is used to characterize such processes.

The traditional but extremely narrow context of hiring, firing, and job description is considered a 20th century anachronism. Most corporate organizations that compete in the modern global economy have adopted a view of human capital that mirrors the modern consensus as above. Some of these, in turn, deprecate the term “human resources” as useless.

As the term refers to predictable exploitations of human capital in one context or another, it can still be said to apply to manual labor, mass agriculture, low skill “McJobs” in service industries, military and other work that has clear job descriptions, and which generally do not encourage creative or social contributions.

In general the abstractions of macro-economics treat it this way – as it characterizes no mechanisms to represent choice or ingenuity. So one interpretation is that “firm-specific human capital” as defined in macro-economics is the modern and correct definition of “human resources” – and that this is inadequate to represent the contributions of “human resources” in any modern theory of political economy.

DAR asked:


http://www.hawaiireporter.com/story.aspx?d288f530-05b6-4bd0-b0cf-eadd0ff9ed40

“Oil prices are on the minds of many Americans as gas hits $4 a gallon, and continues to surge. How high can prices go? How can we solve these problems? What, or who, is to blame?

Part of the answer lies in understanding bubbles and monetary inflation, but especially the Federal Reserve System. The Federal Reserve is charged with controlling inflation through interest rate manipulation, however, many fail to realize that creating money, and therefore inflation, is really its only tool. When the Federal Reserve inflates the dollar as drastically as it has in the past few decades, the first users of the newly created money go in search of investments for their dollars. They must invest this money quickly and aggressively before it loses value.

This causes certain sectors to expand beyond what would naturally occur in the free market. Eventually the sector overheats and the bubble bursts. Overinvestment in dotcoms eventually led to a collapse of the NASDAQ.

Next we had the housing bubble, and now we are seeing the price of oil being bid up in the creation of another new bubble. Investors are now looking to commodities like oil, for stability and growth as they pull capital out of real estate. This increased demand for investment vehicles related to oil contributes to driving up the price of the actual product.

If the Fed continues with its bubble blowing policies of the past, the new commodities bubble will continue to grow, gas prices will continue to go up, as the value of your dollars go down. We will see an overinvestment in these commodities as solutions are desperately sought for a supply shortage, which is only part of the problem. Make no mistake, though, this is not the free market at work. Government manipulations have added levels of complication and unintended consequences to the marketplace.

This is not the time for members of Congress to take political potshots at each other, or to imagine that the free market is somehow to blame. This is the time to understand and fix problems. That begins with making sure the decision makers have a firm grasp on the causes of the problems and possible effects of their decisions. This is absolutely crucial if we want to get it right this time. That is why I am in the process of calling for hearings on Capitol Hill on how the falling value of the dollar affects energy prices.

Governments need to get out of the way and let the people get back to work so that we can get our economy back on stable footing. Our destructive regulatory environment, confiscatory tax policies, and managed, rather than free trade have chased many businesses overseas.

The bottom line is average Americans are being seriously hurt by these flawed policies, and they are not getting good information about the true dynamics at work. The important thing now is to get the diagnosis absolutely correct so we can administer the appropriate treatment and move on to a healthier economic future. To do this it is absolutely necessary to address the subjects of central banking and fiat money.
By the way, a Presidential candidate wrote that. Guess which one?
Devine, was there anything substantive you wanted to offer?

Commodity Trading can be a satisfying venture when you invest here. Everybody dreams of being rich, and we hear so many stories of people getting to be millionaires with small investments in commodity trading. On the other hand there are also many stories of people who have lost all their money with commodity trading, so it could be risky business. You need a good level of intelligence, skill and the necessary experience to venture into this field. So if you would like to get into it, maybe a few lessons at commodity trading are the need of the hour.

Using computers you can simulate commodity trading in a virtual world. What this means is, you can use simulated or make believe money to have a trial run of sorts, much like a game where you use play money to buy and sell stock that the computer generates. There are certain software available just for this. But keep in mind, that won’t help you predict real market ups and downs.

Of course these programs can give you a good feel of what to expect when you hit the real markets. You will be prepared how to react when the markets open and close for the day.

With these software, once you get a feel of the way the markets work, you will definitely lower your risks and decrease the chances of losing out. At the same time you increase your chances of getting rich. Never forget that while commodity trading can quickly make you rich, things could go the other way if you aren’t careful. That is why it is great to be able to practice before you enter the real market. What better way to practice than with a computer simulation where you don’t spend any real money?

The veterans will tell you there is no better way to practice than get a taste of the real thing. This is obviously true; but why not get a little basic simulated practice before you practice in the real world?

If you do not wish to invest in software, you could also look up some web sites that offer you the simulation service. Many of them require a registration fee that you can pay with a credit card. If you are new to the software scene, you could always look up such web sites. In any case, if you are a beginner at the stocks, do try and get some sort of simulation run before you get to the markets.

Making money in the stock markets is not about luck, as many laymen believe. It is about getting a good feel of the markets and using your intelligence to predict which share of likely to move up or down.



By: Abhishek Agarwal

About the Author:

Caffeinated Content

Gentle Mental Floss asked:


Why the Dollar Bubble is about to Burst?
IRAN HAS REALLY DONE IT…more deadlier than the nuclear..
The Voice (issue 264 -) ran an article beginning, ‘ Iran has really gone and done it now. No, they haven’t sent their first nuclear sub in to the Persian Gulf . They are about to launch something much more deadly — next week the Iran Bourse will open to trade oil, not n dollars but in Euros’ This apparently insignificant event has consequences far greater for the US people, indeed all for us all, than is imaginable. Currently almost all oil buying and selling is in US-dollars through exchanges in London and New York . It is not accidental they are both US-owned. The Wall Street crash in 1929 sparked off global depression and World War II. During that war the US supplied provisions and munitions to all its allies, refusing currency and demanding gold payments in exchange.
By 1945, 80% of the world’s gold was sitting in US vaults. The dollar became the one undisputed global reserve currency — it was treated world-wide as `safer than gold’. The Bretton Woods agreement was established. The US took full advantage over the next decades and printed dollars like there was no tomorrow. The US exported many mountains of dollars, paying for ever-increasing amounts of commodities, tax cuts for the rich, many wars abroad, mercenaries, spies and politicians the world over. You see, this did not affect inflation at home! TheUS got it all for free! Well, maybe for a forest or two.
Over subsequent decades the world’s vaults bulged at the seams and more and more vaults were built, just for US dollars. Each year, the US spends many more dollars abroad that at home. Analysts pretty much agree that outside the US , of the savings, or reserves, of all other countries, in gold and all currencies — that a massive 66% of this total wealth is in US dollars! In 1971 several countries simultaneously tried to sell a small portion of their dollars to the US for gold. Krassimir Petrov, (Ph. D. in Economics at OhioUniversity ) recently wrote, ‘The US Government defaulted on its payment on August 15, 1971 . While popular spin told the story of `severing the link between the dollar and gold’, in reality the denial to pay back in gold was an act of bankruptcy by the US Government.’ The 1945 Breton Woods agreement was unilaterally smashed.
The dollar and US economy were on a precipice resembling Germany in 1929.
The US now had to find a way for the rest of the world to believe and have faith in the paper dollar. The solution was in oil, in the petrodollar. The US viciously bullied first Saudi Arabia and then OPEC to sell oil for dollars only — it worked, the dollar was saved. Now countries had to keep dollars to buy much needed oil. And the US could buy oil all over the world, free of charge. What a Houdini for the US ! Oil replaced gold as the new foundation to stop the paper dollar sinking. Since 1971, the US printed even more mountains of dollars to spend abroad.The trade deficit grew and grew. The US sucked-in much of the world’s products for next to nothing. More vaults were built.
Expert, Cóilínn Nunan, wrote in 2003, ‘The dollar is the de facto world reserve currency: the US currency accounts for approximately two thirds of all official exchange reserves. More than four-fifths of all foreign exchange transactions and half of all world exports are denominated in dollars. In addition, all IMF loans are denominated in dollars.’
Dr Bulent Gukay of Keele University recently wrote, ‘This system of the US dollar acting as global reserve currency in oil trade keeps the demand for the dollar `artificially’ high. This enables the US to carry out printing dollars at the price of next to nothing to fund increased military spending and consumer spending on imports. There is no theoretical limit to the amount of dollars that can be printed. As long as the US has no serious challengers, and the other states have confidence in the US dollar, the system functions.’
Until recently, the US-dollar has been safe. However, since 1990 Western Europe has been busy growing, swallowing up central and Eastern Europe .French and German bosses were jealous of the US ability to buy goods and people the world over for nothing. They wanted a slice of the free cake too.
Further, they now had the power and established the euro in late 1999 against massive US-inspired opposition across Europe , especially from Britain – paid for in dollars of course. But the euro succeeded.
Only months after the euro-launch, Saddam’s Iraq announced it was switching from selling oil in dollars only, to euros only — breaking the OPEC agreement.. Iran , Russia , Venezuela , Libya , all began talking openly of switching too — were the floodgates about to be opened? Then aero planes flew into the twin-towers in September 2001. Was this another Houdini chance to save the US (petro) dollar and the biggest financial/economic crash in history? War preparations began in the US But first war-fever had to be created — and truth was the first casualty. Other oil producing countries watched-on. In 2000 Iraq began selling oil in euros. In 2002, Iraq changed all their petro-dollars in their vaults into euros. A few months later, the US began their invasion of Iraq .
The whole world was watching: very few aware that the US was engaging in the first oil currency, or petro-dollar war. After the invasion of Iraq in March 2003, remember, the US secured oil areas first. Their first sales in August were, of course, in dollars, again. The only government building in Baghdad not bombed was the Oil Ministry! It does not matter how many people are murdered — for the US , the petro-dollar must be saved as the only way to buy and sell oil – otherwise the US economy will crash, and much more besides. In early 2003, Hugo Chavez, President of Venezuela talked openly of selling half of its oil in euros (the other half is bought by the US ). On 12 April 2003, the US-supported business leaders and some generals in Venezuela kidnapped Chavez and attempted a coup. The masses rose against this and the Army followed suit. The coup failed. This was bad for the US . In November 2000 the euro/dollar was at $0.82 dollars, its lowest ever, and still diving, but when Iraq started selling oil in euros, the euro dive was halted. In April 2002 senior OPEC reps talked about trading in euros and the euro shot up. In June 2003 the US occupiers of Iraq switched trading back to dollars and the euro fell against the dollar again. In August 2003 Iran starts to sell oil in euros to some European countries and the euro rises sharply. In the winter of 2003-4 Russian and OPEC politicians talked seriously of switching oil/gas sales to the euro and the euro rose. In February 2004 OPEC met and made no decision to turn to the euro — and yes, the euro fell against the dollar. In June 2004 Iran announced it would build an oil bourse to rival London and New York , and again, the euro rose. The euro stands at $1.27 and has been climbing of late.
But matters this month became far, far worse for the US dollar. On 5th May Iran registered its own Oil Bourse, the IOB. Not only are they now selling oil in euros from abroad — they have established an actual Oil Bourse, a global trading centre for all countries to buy and sell their oil! In Chavez’s recent visit to London ; he talked openly about supporting the Iranian Oil Bourse, and selling oil in euros. When asked in London about the new arms embargo imposed by the US against Venezuela , Chavez prophetically dismissed the US as ‘a paper tiger’. Currently, almost all the world’s oil is sold on either the NYMEX, New York Mercantile Exchange, or the IPE, London’s International Petroleum Exchange.
Both are owned by US citizens and both sell and buy only in US dollars. The success of the Iran Oil Bourse makes sense to Europe , which buys 70% of Iran ‘s oil. It makes sense for Russia , which sells 66% of its oil to Europe . But worse for the US , China and India have already stated they are very interested in the new Iranian Oil Bourse.
If there is a tactical-nuclear strike on – deja-vu – `weapons of mass destruction’ in Iran , who would bet against a certain Oil Exchange and more, being bombed too?
And worse for Bush. It makes sense for Europe , China , India and Japan– as well as all the other countries mentioned above — to buy and sell oil in Euro’s. They will certainly have to stock-up on euros now, and they will sell dollars to do so. The euro is far more stable than the debt-ridden dollar. The IMF has recently highlighted US economic difficulties and the trade deficit strangling the US– there is no way out.
The problem for so many countries now is how to get rid of their vaults full of dollars, before it crashes? And the US has bullied so many countries for so many decades around the world, that many will see a chance to kick the bully back. The US cannot accept even 5% of the world’s dollars — it would crash the US economy dragging much of the world with it, especially Britain .
To survive, as the Scottish Socialist Voice article stated, ‘the US , needs to generate a trade surplus to get out of this one. Problem is it can’t.’
This is spot on. To do that they must force US workers into near slavery, to get paid less than Chinese or Indian workers. We all know that this will not happen.What will happen in the US ? Chaos for sure. Maybe a workers revolution, but looking at the situation as it is now, it is more likely to be a re-run of Germany post-1929, and some form of extreme-right mass movement will emerge… Does Europe and China/Asia have the economic independence and strength to stop the whole world’s economies collapsing with the US ? Their vaults are full to the brim with dollars.
The US has to find a way to pay for its dollar-imperialist exploitation of the world since 1945.. Somehow, eventually, it has to account for every dollar in every vault in the world. Bombing Iran could backfire tremendously. It would bring Iran openly into the war in Iraq , behind the Shiite majority. The US cannot cope even now with the much smaller Iraqi insurgency. Perhaps the US will feed into the Sunni v Shiite conflict and turn it into a wider Middle-East civil-war.
However, this is so dangerous for global oil supplies. Further, they know that this would be temporary, as some country somewhere else, will establish a euro-oil-exchange, perhaps in Brussels .
There is one `solution’ — scrap the dollar and print a whole new currency for the US . This will destroy 66% of the rest of the world’s savings/reserves in one swoop. Imagine the implications? Such are the desperate things now swimming around heads in the White House, Wall Street and Pentagon.
Another is to do as Germany did, just before invading Poland in 1938. The ***** filmed a mock Polish Army attack on Germany , to win hearts and minds at home. But again, this is a finger in the dam. So, how is the US going to escape this time? The only global arena of total superiority left is military. Who knows what horrors lie ahead. A new world war is one tool by which the US could discipline its `allies’ into keeping the dollar in their vaults.
The task of socialists today is to explain to as many as possible, especially our class, that the coming crisis belongs purely to capitalism and (dollar) imperialism. Not people of other cultures, not Islam, not the axis of evil or their so-called WMDs. Their system alone is to blame.
The new Iranian Oil Bourse, the IOB, is situated in a new building on the free-trade-zone island of Kish , in the Persian Gulf . It’s computers and software are all set to go. The IOB was supposed to be up and running last March, but many pressures forced a postponement. Where the pressure came from is obvious. It was internationally registered on 5th May and supposed to open mid-May, but its opening was put off, some saying the oil-mafia was involved, along with much international pressure. ………………………
In 2007 Crude was traded around 60 usd. Everyone know dollar was getting weaker and weaker day by day. Then US with the help of their two NYMEX & IPE exchange started raising the price of crude by Future trading on crude( called speculation). Today crude is around 140 usd. It means whole world who were paying 60 usd, now paying 140 usd, means demand of dollar increase to 230% and dollar start again rising.
Even OPEC recently that in hike og crude, 60% contribution is due to speculation (Future market).
Moral of story is USA has & will go to destroy any nation to keep its monopoly of dollar in world.

Return of Bite My Shiny Metal… asked:


If the commodity market moves out of the United States because Obama’s Marxist prosperity plans result in over regulation, what is his back up plan? In an era of global markets, there is nothing to stop the commodities market from relocating to a more regulation friendly country where oil futures will still be freely traded. What will Obama do then? As near as I can tell, this proposal; like so many of his others, is nothing but the flatulent garrulity and appeals only to those who are uninformed.

The financial loss to this country if the commodities market relocated would also be significant.

http://www.barackobama.com/2008/06/22/obama_announces_plan_to_fully.php

None of the answers from people supporting this plan address what plan ‘B’ is if the commodities market moves out of the United States. All they do is bash President Bush, which really doesn’t address the possibility.
I asked about the market moving to another country and what Obama would do then. This question does not ask for commentary regarding the evils of capitalism of those who profit from it.
For Kenny: That phony religion he embraces is nothing more than Marxist dialectics packaged up as a religion.
When Clinton was in the White House, India and China were third world nations.
Since the invention of the computer and the internet, there is absolutely no reason for investors and traders to relocate to a foreign country.

7th heaven freak asked:


what do these things mean?

The Panic of 1819, an economic depression brought on by collapsing commodity prices and the influx of inexpensive manufactured goods from overseas, exacerbated regional economic and political tension. Trade tariffs were one issue that polarized North and South, and the admission of new states as “slave states” or “free states” was another.
Missouri Compromise
The Missouri Territory had petitioned for admittance to the Union as a slave state in 1818. This created consternation in the northern states, where opposition to slavery was strong. Monroe and others were acutely aware of the need for balance in these matters.

Monroe supported and ultimately approved a proposal by Henry Clay to allow one slave state, Missouri, and one free state, Maine, admittance to the Union. All territory north and west of Missouri would become free states.
what do these two things mean?

The Panic of 1819, an economic depression brought on by collapsing commodity prices and the influx of inexpensive manufactured goods from overseas, exacerbated regional economic and political tension. Trade tariffs were one issue that polarized North and South, and the admission of new states as “slave states” or “free states” was another.
Missouri Compromise
The Missouri Territory had petitioned for admittance to the Union as a slave state in 1818. This created consternation in the northern states, where opposition to slavery was strong. Monroe and others were acutely aware of the need for balance in these matters.

Monroe supported and ultimately approved a proposal by Henry Clay to allow one slave state, Missouri, and one free state, Maine, admittance to the Union. All territory north and west of Missouri would become free states.

A line had been drawn that, for the time being, defused the situation. But many, including Thomas Jefferson, were concerned that such a formal division would eventually set each region against the other to the point of threatening the union of the states.
i don’t understand what it is sayin

Rick asked:


1.The infant industry argument for tariffs is criticized:
a.because it is difficult to determine which industries merit protection.
b.because direct subsidies are probably a better means of stimulating such industries.
c.because the tariffs may remain after the industry reaches maturity.
d.for all of the above reasons.

2.The increased-domestic-employment argument for tariff protection holds that:
a.domestic inflation is a desirable policy goal because it stimulates exports.
b.domestic deflation is a desirable policy goal because it stimulates imports.
c.an increase in tariffs will reduce net exports and stimulate domestic employment.
d.an increase in tariffs will increase net exports and stimulate domestic employment.

3.An excise tax on an imported good that is not produced domestically is called a:
a.protective tariff.
b.import quota.
c.revenue tariff.
d.voluntary export restriction.

4.Export supply curves are __________________; import demand curves are ___________________.
a.horizontal; vertical
b.vertical; horizontal
c.downsloping; upsloping
d.upsloping; downsloping

5.The terms of trade reflect the:
a.rate at which gold exchanges internationally for any domestic currency.
b.ratio at which nations will exchange two goods.
c.fact that the gains from trade will be equally divided.
d.cost conditions embodied in a single country’s production possibilities curve.

6.Which of the following is an example of a labor-intensive commodity?
a.cameras
b.beer
c.aspirin tablets
d.gasoline

7.In recent years the United States has:
a.exported more services abroad than it has imported.
b.had a small goods trade surplus with Japan.
c.had a large goods trade surplus with the rest of the world.
d.fallen to third behind Japan and Germany in the list of leading export nations (absolute volume basis).

Carina G asked:


For international trade betwwen countries A and B to be mutually profitable even though A can produce every commodity more cheaply than B?