What are the advantages and disadvantages of leaving the allocation of of a country's resources to price?
970517
First of all prices of resources are supposed to be set by supply, demand, and production costs.\n\nI have done considerable research and found that Thomas Jefferson tried to link set amounts of Gold-Silver-Copper-Wheatgrains and labor {man hours needed to produce these products} together to accomplish stable prices, for all products, without inflation.\nIf you are an American you may have read that Gold and Silver, used as money, is still mandated by the U.S. Constitution. The USA had almost zero inflation for about 130 years under the Gold standard. \n\nUnfortunately, Jefferson couldn't predict the supply and demand side of the equation.\nWhich in some cases, in later years,  produced governmental pricing of products, a practice now outlawed which is called, price fixing.\n\nThe bottom line is:\nProducers add costs of production and a profit into the price they charge for the finished product. If they have a monopoly on their product, they can charge anything they want. That's why compitition on products keeps prices lower.\n\nGovernments are not in the business of producing products. Therefore, it is my opinion they are not qualified to set prices on products.\n\nOne other point, the dollar is supposed to get it's value by adding together the value of a country's resources, and subtracting the amount of government debt incurred. However using unbacked paper money, prices on resources can be inflated to overcome the debt burden side of the equation, to give the illusion of a strong dollar, on the world market. \n\nI hope this answer is somewhat understandable.
491432
In most countries when you sell an investment, you have to pay taxes on the profits immediately, even if you sold the investment to reinvest in something else.\n\nTo avoid this inconvenience banks and other investment firms invented the "fund of funds". The manager of this type of fund determines his own strategy of arbitrage and reinvestment within a number of mutual funds. For the buyer of the fund of funds the advantage is that his reinvested money did not leave the fund of funds, and he doesn't have to pay taxes.\n\nThe advantage for the bank is that the fund family used by the manager is often that of the bank, which means that the bank earns twice the manager fee, once on each fund.  \n\nThe details depend on the country and its tax rules.\n\nBeing a fund of funds is one of the investment strategies used by hedge funds as it permits arbitrage between stocks, bonds, commodities according to the model the manager uses\nbut without him being encumbered by the burden of having to choose individual investments.
290004
Trading in the currency of other countries.
744643
The reality is that globalization is a positive for all players involved.  Right now, the rich countries are enjoying all the benefits without taking any of the risks and globablization does not benefit every single person anyway.  The concept is that if country A can make everything cheaper than country B, both countries can benefit by letting each do what it does best.  A may pay more to B for some things than they could make it themselves for, but A will make more money by selling other products to B.  B makes money, both by selling its goods and by purchasing A's products.  The down side is that each country must focus on its specialty and re-deploy resources from industries where it doesn't have a significant advantage.  That means that you really shouldn't be making clothes or growing wheat in N. America or Europe.  That is something that can be done better in S. America and Africa, freeing up American and European capital and labor to focus on industries where it has an overwhelming advantage.  But if you are a farmer or work in a clothing factory, you probably see if differently.
494634
Before making any decision (such as whether to acquire another business, build another plant, hire more people, invest in a new product, etc.), management should weigh the costs (potential risks included) vs. the benefits to be gained (profits).\n\nThus, for example, if you could make $500/unit of some new product that costs $1000 to develop, you would only need to sell 2 units to break even.  If it is feasible to sell 3 or more, according to this cost/benefit analysis, developing the new product is a good business decision. (bad example, but it should illustrate the point)
754170
Basicly the reason is that free market mechanism optimize short term profits. Examples abound: \n- why investing in pollution control *now*, although cleaning up in 20 years might cost much more?\n- why investing in fundamental research *now*, although it might give us a killer app in 10 years? \n- why not move our production factories to India and China *now*, although our workless population at home may no longer be able to buy our products in five years?
252187
While pricing one must consider the cost elements first. Then depending on organization objectives and position with regards to market practice and competition prices are decided. \n\nIf pricing is used as competitive advantage then the only way to do this is mass production.\n\nWhen production increase cost decrease. \n\nThis what happened in china on the contrary taiwan decreased quality to decrease cost therefore lost customers and reputition.
89972
You didn't really specify if you mean trade between states as in American states or as in different nations. Fundamentally, there is not that much of a difference though. The most important concept in economics is that different economies are really intertwined in one large economy. Different regions and populations possess different resources that others do not. The best examples are natural resources. Imagine how our world would be if the Middle East (or in the domestic case, say, Texas) did not trade their oil. Imagine what would happen to the small island nation of Japan if it could not import raw materials such as iron/steel to produce automobiles. Human resources are also important. The cost of many products we buy would be much higher if Chinese labor were not so inexpensive or if we were forced to produce microchips in southern California for ten times the cost! And far fewer of us would have wine if it weren't for countries like France and Australia, or states like California and Oregon. And what if we couldn't get potatoes from Idaho or peanuts from Georgia? As you can see, states depend on one another to provide raw materials, finished goods, services and labor that they themselves cannot. Without trade between different regions, our world would not function as it currently does and we would all be worse off!
594491
Let's say you own an Oil well in Canada and the demand for oil goes up in China and India.\n\nWell if demand goes up and supply stays the same the price will raise.\n\nIf the price rises in China and India then you can sell your oil for more money in china and India than if you sell it in Canada, and you will, or you will just sell it for more in Canada.\n\nThe answer to your question is that oil is publicly traded and can be bought or sold in any country so if the price of oil goes up somewhere it will affect the price of Oil every where.\n\nNow I am going to try to convince you that this is a good thing.\n\nIf your Oil well in Canada breaks and their is a shortage of oil in Canada than the price of Oil will go up because of the drop in supply that can not meet demand.\n\nIn a free market system Oil Producers from around the world will try to get their oil to Canada to make a profit and then supply will meet up with demand this will prevent shortages and eventually the price will drop.\n\nIf Oil prices were controlled by the government and the prices were kept low when there was a lack of supply the price would stay the same and there would be shortages of oil in Canada because foreign Oil makers would not waste their time shipping oil to Canada if they can sell it some where else for more or the same minus shipping.\n\nThis is why I think Governments should stay out of price controls.
318704
Only if you are the country that is sanctioned. over all the world economy is able to absorb enough of the lost produces.  well except when it comes to Oil.
875935
People migrate for economic reasons, better livelihood, better healthcare, better education, basically progression in life.\n\nThe advantage is that people send money home and people develop new skills abroad that may better the people
374378
Sure, just let the feasible region describe the number of items you're going to sell, what they weigh, or how long it takes to make them.  None of those things can be negative.  With a little thought you should find dozens of examples.
210967
If you mean OPEC, it's mostly disadvantages.\n\nThey are essentially a Union that arranges to control the production and price of oil.\n\nThe oil price per barrel is dictated by them.  \n\nAmerica has attempted, for years, to increase our own production, but lobbying and falseified information releases paid for by OPEC have hindered this greatly.\n\nAs a result, they attempt to dictate foreign policy to us at the threat of higher prices/lower production of oil.
288517
Disadvantage is that some people are becoming more rich while others are becoming more and more dependent on them. Advantages- those rich people can help others, the standard of living must increase for all people.
104776
The answer lies in the basic economic principle of specilization according to comparative advantage and then trading.  The same idea applies to interstate trade, and international trade.  Comparative advantage says that even though one state or nation may be better at producing two goods than another state or nation, they should specialize in the good in which they have the largest production advantage, and the other state or nation should specialize in the good in which they have the least disadvantage.  This means that the first state or nation could have the absolute advantage (be most efficient compared to the other country) in both goods being produced, but still have an incentive to trade because of the theory of comparative advantage.  Hopefully this answers your question.  If you're working on homework and need more clarification you can email me at studyeconomics@yahoo.com.  I'm a Business Management and Economics major, so I would be happy to clarify any of this if you need it.
670243
You'd be better off it you stayed in your country and imported us. made products. It is going to be cheaper in the long run. You'll make much more capital.
434243
When a government prints more money and puts it into the system, it causes HYPO inflation, and then instead of needing 3 dollars for a gallon of gas, you will need 30,000 dollars.  It causes way too much problem.  You do not want that to happen, no jobs, not work and not trillion of dollars to buy it with.  \n\nNo other country would trade with such a country and eventually that country would fall into depression and total collapse.