Great Deal! Get Instant $10 FREE in Account on First Order + 10% Cashback on Every Order Order Now

Respond to students 1st students discussion In my opinion, globalization would be better in the long run for a country. The textbooks gave a couple of examples such as how the Lifesaver candy company...

1 answer below »
Respond to students
1st students discussion

In my opinion, globalization would be better in the long run for a country. The textbooks gave a couple of examples such as how the Lifesaver candy company moved its operations from the United States to Canada because the government keeps the price of sugar up to support US sugar farmers. While supporting the sugar farmers it takes other jobs and industries. Another example from the textbook I liked was how Brazil treated its computer industry as an infant industry using protectionism from the 1970s to the 1990s. This led to a backward and out-of-date industry, typically lagging behind world standards for price and performance by three to five years—a long time in this fast-moving industry.

I still think governments should practice a little protectionism. For instance, if the United States is going to trade with another country and this country is issuing tariffs, import quotas, and non-tariff barriers for the U.S. then the U.S. should enact the same for the products that come from that country. The U.S. could make it easier for the manufacturers of these imports to be produced by providing tax breaks or incentives. In the long run the best product would win out and the consumer would reap the rewards. It is hard to make predictions and try to keep a countries economy on the right track. The way the world is headed more and more countries are headed toward globalization and the countries that are not, end up with poor economies and unhappy citizens like North Korea for example.

2nd students discussion

I think the world would benefit from a little bit of both protectionism and globalization. If only we did not have to choose one over the other.

While protectionism seems great for domestic jobs, it would only be temporary. Companies would not be able to grow and expand. How many, let's say for example peach tree farms, would we need domestically? Not that many if we are only supplying to domestic customers. If this was globalization, peachtree farms could go international, supply more jobs, and bring in more supply/demand for the product. How much of the same product can 1 company produce (for domestic needs)? Eventually, the products would lack quality because there would be no foreign competition so no point to improve.

Of course, it is important to support local, but imagine if that was our only option. Eventually, products would not be as innovated and things would come to a standstill. With globalization, product prices can go down. Countries that are suffering can start to prosper, reducing the amount of homelessness and poverty in the world.

This of course would happen if the world was perfect and everything went according to plan. That is why my true answer would be both protectionism and globalization. For arguments sake I chose globalization.

Edited byJacqueline Monroyon Jul 13 at 8:50pm
Answered Same Day Jul 14, 2021


Abhishek answered on Jul 15 2021
134 Votes
Table of Contents
Response to Student 1    3
Response to Student 2    3
Response to Student 1
Your discussion board post supports protectionism yet the concept of globalization has been considered by you as the future of a count. You also explain with few examples of how protectionism is helpful for the companies to grow and even put up an example of how Brazil took a protective approach to its computer industry, which resulted in the...

Answer To This Question Is Available To Download

Related Questions & Answers

More Questions »

Submit New Assignment

Copy and Paste Your Assignment Here