Share2 Shares Religious topics abound on Listverse and they are frequently the most commented upon. It has been some time since the last one so it seems like the time is ripe for another — and this one is a great one for discussion. Here we present five arguments in favor of the existence of God, and the counterargument for it.
Arguments for and against Protection Overview This chapter has two purposes: To present a framework and a rule for evaluating arguments offered in favor of limiting imports, and to apply the framework and rule to several prominent arguments for protection. The framework allows us to look at situations in which the free market may not result in economic efficiency, because of incentive distortions that result in market failures.
In the "first-best" world with no distortions, private marginal benefits MB to consumers who make buying decisions equal social marginal benefits SMBbecause there are no consumption externalities or spillovers, private marginal costs MC recognized by sellers equal social marginal costs SMCbecause there are no production externalities or spillovers, and all of these are equal to market price, because the market is perfectly competitive and there are no distorting taxes.
When external cost, external benefits, a distorting tax, monopoly power, or monopsony power exists, the market will usually not yield the first-best outcome, because social marginal benefit will not equal social marginal cost. In situations in which the free-market outcome is second-best, there is a potential role for government policy to contribute to economic efficiency.
We mention the approach of creating new property rights, but we focus in this chapter on the tax-or-subsidy approach to eliminate distortions in private incentives. Fortunately, there is a useful rule that works well in most cases.
If the problem is an incentive distortion, the specificity rule indicates that government policy should intervene at the source of the problem, to act as directly as possible on the source of the distortion.
Toward the end of the chapter, we offer a second version of the specificity rule. If the government has a noneconomic objective, the government policy to achieve this noneconomic objective with the least economic cost is usually the policy that acts directly to achieve it.
The specificity rule is powerful in its applications. If the problem is that a distortion results in too little domestic production, what is the best government policy to address the distortion?
A tariff can be used to increase domestic production, so it may be better than doing nothing, but it is not the direct policy, because it acts on imports directly, not on domestic production. The best government policy is a subsidy to domestic production.
Domestic production is increased, correcting the distortion. The production subsidy is better because it does not distort domestic consumption. A tariff would squeeze some consumers out of buying, resulting in the inefficiency of the consumption effect triangle d.
The tariff is indirect and not the best policy to address the production distortion. In fact, if we can be more specific about exactly what the source of the distortion is, we should employ a more specific policy. If the distortion arises from external benefits e. The infant industry argument leads to another application of the specificity rule, as well as raising a set of other interesting issues.
The argument is that import competition prevents an initially uncompetitive domestic industry from starting production. But, if the industry is shielded from foreign competition, it can begin production, and over time it will be able to lower its production costs, so that it becomes competitive.
At that time in the future the protection can be removed, and the industry will provide national benefits in the form of producer surplus. In this scenario, a tariff can be better than doing nothing, for national well-being over the long term. But the specificity rule indicates that the better government policy is one that acts directly on the source of distortion.
If the issue is to foster initial domestic production, then a production subsidy is a better government policy. One may even wonder why this is needed. Why cannot the firms in the infant industry borrow to finance initial losses and then pay back the loans using future profits when the industry is grown up?
If there are defects in the lending markets, then the government could extend loans. If the industry will create external benefits, such as training workers or new technologies, then the best government policy acts directly on the source of the external benefits for instance, subsidies to training, or subsidies to research and development.
Another argument in favor of protection is assistance to industries that are declining because of rising import competition.The board of revision decided in favor of the fiscal officer’s values.
The school board appealed to the Ohio Board of Tax Appeals. The tax appeals board focused on the issue of whether the sale constituted a “recent” one.
Arguments about the prohibition of drugs, and over drug policy reform, are subjects of considerable controversy. The following is a presentation of major drug policy arguments, including those for drug law enforcement on one side of the debate, and arguments for drug law reform on the other.
Chapter 9 Arguments for and against Protection. Overview. This chapter has two purposes: To present a framework and a rule for evaluating arguments offered in favor of limiting imports, and to apply the framework and rule to .
1. The Goals of Theistic Arguments. Before attempting to explain and assess moral arguments for the existence of God, it would be helpful to have some perspective on the goals of arguments for God’s existence.
Arguments in Favor of Moving to a Sustainable Business Model in the Apiary Industry. we assess notions of human well-being beyond income or direct health concerns (e.g. related to gender. Assess the arguments in favor of the greater use of direct democracy in the UK. There are both positives and negative for the UK government using a greater amount of direct democracy in the way they govern.