In this second part of our discussion board I would like you to start by reading the posts by your classmates to Discussion Board Part 1 summarizing each of the theories. I would like you to write around 250-300 words here where you answer the following: Imagine a new state just formed and the president/prime minister/dictator/ruler came to you and said "now that you've take a few weeks of International Relations I want you to tell me which of these three systems I should implement for the greatest success for my country". Which would you recommend and why? How are you defining "success" in this case? Why would you not choose the other two?
You can earn up to 20 points based on your use of evidence, persuasiveness of your argumentation, usage of correct grammar/writing style, and especially demonstration that you've read your classmates responses to the previous discussion board.
1.Mercantilism is a political economic theory in which a heavy focus is placed on the government regulating international trade in turn to generate wealth and look to increase national power. The idea when regulating trade is the Government works with merchants to create what’s called a trade surplus. In this economic theory trade policies that protect domestic industries are heavily emphasized. Mercantilism looks to eliminate anything that could aid foreign companies in any way. It does this by heavily taxing on imports and prohibits emigration of labor, capital, and tools: making it impossible for foreign states to make their economic presence within its borders. The main advantage I see with this theory is the idea of attempting to gain superiority over other states by maintaining a market in which foreign goods are frowned upon. This allows for work within the country and possibly a bit more national pride if products that have been made within the borders that they live. When having a trade surplus this allows for that wealth to further be used in attempt to gain an advantage with national economic goals and national business. However a major fall back to this is the fact that other countries can provide us with goods that you may need that aren’t accessible within the borders of the state. Therefore in this theory those goods would be heavily taxed and not appeal to those in the domestic market. Another done side is the fact that other states may not want to import your goods if a heavy tax is being placed on a good that they may want to export. I believe trade is a great thing and a necessary thing when talking about a proper functioning economic system. The theory overall when looking at it in a broad perspective is very interesting, in the fact that they imports as a negative thing and look to push a surplus of exports into other states to gain power. Power in exports is very interesting however like i’ve said before I do believe for this theory to be a bit too power hungry and not ideal in a modern day economy.
2.The theory Economic Liberalism is based on the principles of personal liberty, private property, and limited government interference. The term “liberalism” should be understood in its historical context. Economic liberalism opposes government intervention in the economy when it leads to inefficient outcomes. They are supportive of a strong state that protects the right to property and enforces contracts. Economic liberals has protectionism in the market when it inhibits free trade and open competition, but support government intervention to protect property rights and resolve market failures. However, the advantages of economic liberalism is the virtues that it entails such as it create wealth, multiplies exchanges, and inspires innovations. As well as, another advantage of economic liberalism can help reduce the rates of interest and tariffs. This can help fight inflation and high prices that are constantly fluctuating in the United States. Some disadvantages of economic liberalism is economic instability because of the increase of the foreign markets which can result in a huge impact to the economy. Another disadvantage to economic liberalism is the technology. Due to the increase of technological advances, there would be less skilled workers who can implement the technology. My thoughts on this theory is that I do not think it is beneficial for the economy. My reasoning is that I think that there are always going to be advancements and upgrades to the market and technology, so there will always be one job at a time that would be given to technology and less for the people. As well as the increasing dependence on other nations for technology and forex will continue to rise. I do think that it could be problematic because it is constantly decreasing and nations becoming dependent does not seem like a uprise in the economy more of a decrease of the economy.
3. The basics of my theory which is economical liberalism are that they adhere to political and economic philosophy which advocates fiscal policy and the balancing of budgets. They share the basic ideas in which they believe which are low taxes, reduced government spending, and minimized government debt. Economic liberalism opposes government intervention since it leads o insufficient outcomes. They do support a strong state that protects property rights and enforces contracts in the power of the state withholds. They also support government interventions to resolve market failures. They refer more to the market as competitive and have access to secure finance, skills, and technology. They do not rely on the markets but have hope when needed for them. The advantages to my theory are that it is the best theory and way to govern a country that is still growing and has desirable needs for things to change. The capital of economic liberalism will always be flowing into and out of the country since that is the main goal. This will help with things like trade and economic power due to the large amounts of money these types of states have. A state might want to follow this because it helps them boost economic growth and efficiency. Furthermore, it allows your country to grow the most when it is still in a developmental model. The disadvantages to this theory are that due to liberalism there will always be an increased dependence on other nations for forex, and technology. Add also there will be economic instability due to the rate at which the money gets moved into and out of the country for things like trade or agriculture. A state might not want to follow it because they are low developed, meaning they will never really have the resources they need as technology to help them grow. Also with not a stable amount of money things start to fluctuate. I think this theory isn't all that bad however, I would never follow it just because the countries are usually underdeveloped and do not have a good economic stand. I do not find it compelling since it simply has too many cons as compared to pros and the gains for economic liberalism are not large enough to throw me to the size in favor of it. I do think this theory is problematic and I think this because it leads to the issue of help. What I mean by this is it is never good to rely on other countries and this theory shows us that economic liberalism does rely on other countries for forex and technology which I feel makes it hugely problematic. They need to solve these issues and boost the economy by slowing down the amount of money in and out.
4.Economic liberalism is based off of a man named Adam Smith who believed that an individual should be able to seek their own interest. Adam Smith also believed that markets were best when the government was not as involved. This theory was seen as one of the main theories for many centuries and was extremely popular. There were many advantages with this theory because it created many good things such as wealth, and it inspired innovation since it was based off of individuals self-interest. It also was good because there were certain limitations that were set. A state may have wanted to follow this advantage because people were able to pursue things they wanted to do unlike in other theories they may not have had this opportunity. Even though this sometimes was a good thing this was also a main disadvantage with this theory. This was a huge disadvantage in economic liberalism because the limitations lead to a rise in economic inequality. Since they did not want dominance this caused many problems. Since this was such a huge problem, many states may not wanted to have followed this rule because it caused a lot of problems in the economy due to not wanting dominance. In my opinion, I have many thoughts about economic liberalism. I think there are several pros and cons but at the end of the day it can be extremely difficult because of the economic issues. Yes, I love that in economic liberalism it focuses a lot on the people rather then the government. I love that people are able to go after the things they are interested because that does help with wealth and ideas being brought into the world. Even though that is good, sometimes dominance is a huge factor that is needed to keep everything in control. With economic inequality there can be several issues that go wrong that can cause many problems later on. Even though there are certain things I like about this theory, there are a lot of things that do not work out.
5. Economic liberalism's basic ideals center on the values of individual liberty, property ownership, and little government meddling. This theory thinks that an ideal balance will be reached through the free interaction of supply and demand. They also demonstrate how nations show their peaceful, cooperative nature via healthy competition. They advocate for a powerful government that protects contracts and safeguards property rights. Additionally, they back government actions to correct market imperfections, and businesses rely heavily on competitive markets to gain access to capital, expertise, labor, and technology.
Economic liberalism has enormous qualities since it generates income, increases exchanges, fosters innovation and creativity, and encourages the creation of new initiatives, which is its main asset. A state might adopt it because it benefits society by fostering the formation of new businesses, which creates new jobs, and the economy by stimulating significant capital investment. However, it also has drawbacks that can hurt a nation, such as the concentration of wealth in the industrial and financial strata, which ignores social concerns and leaves out the most marginalized groups, whose lack of involvement in the economy leads to social and economic inequality. As a result of his independence from the State's economic policies, which he dislikes, he has been under a lot of fire and received threats. Additionally, by supporting global free trade, it widens the door to imports, hurting domestic output and competition.
In my opinion, the attempt of economic liberalism is a theory that can seek to improve the well-being of society through activities and achieve freedom and economic development of the country, but when investigating I could notice that, when trying to reach these goals, the disadvantages they create are greater than the advantages they could achieve, which ends up being very detrimental and instead of boosting a country could end up leading it to its downfall.
6. Mercantilism is essentially an economic theory that attempt to maximize exports and minimize imports. To help with this, colonies owned by the mother country should mainly be used for the resources they offer, so those resources can be exported in order to turn a profit. In the theory which favors strong regulation of the economy, the state is augmented at the expense of rival states. A strong stress is placed on the government regulated market, because more exports and less imports means more internal wealth.
As it mainly focuses on business, trade, and commerce, mercantilism typically helps a nation prosper greatly, because it introduces a large amount of wealth into the state. Job opportunities will also be plentiful, and entrepreneurship is encouraged and boosted through the large trade and commerce opportunities. Also, probably most obviously, mercantilism leads to more trade, which leads to more economic growth.
The biggest disadvantage of mercantilism is that it's a very one-sided relationship between states– one state benefits at the expense of the other largely. This is particularly true when mercantilism is applied to colonies, which oftentimes results in pretty harsh colonialism, where the colony is exploited to serve and improve the mother country, while situations in the colony do not improve. When this happens, the fallout can be extreme, especially for the mother country, should the relationship become too abusive, as it did with the United States and Britain, or India and Britain.
I think this theory is very good for the state that practices, but causes extreme harm to the states or colonies that don't, because they pretty much get screwed over to benefit the nation practicing mercantilism. For this reason, I don't find it to be very compelling, since it tends to create a lot of enemies on the path to success, which could lead to problems down the road.
7.The Economic theory of radicalism is largely based on Marxist and Neo-Marxist ideas. Economic radicals observe that capitalism, both at the state and the international level, benefits and supports producers (the upper class) at the expense of workers (middle/lower class.) This creates a significant disparity in the resources owned by different economic classes, with the bulk of the resources being controlled by relatively few wealthy individuals. It also causes inequality of resources between the developed and developing worlds, with developing states not having access to the resources needed to continue their development. This leads to conflicts over resources, both within an economic class and between different classes. It calls for the abandonment of liberal capitalism and places the bulk of its focus on solving economic inequality.
The role of the state in economic radicalism is to take control of the economy away from the elite producers and place it in the hands of the state. The state regulates the economy much more heavily in a way that encourages equality, distributing resources much more evenly than the capitalist system. The market is also regulated by the state in order to ensure equality, as the unchecked free market is what leads to conflict over resources.
The advantages of the theory of radicalism are that it brings to light and attempts to solve the obvious conflict between classes. Exploitative practices are rampant among large corporations and bringing awareness to this is necessary and productive. It is also important to acknowledge the poverty present in society and to seek ways to resolve this problem. A state might want to follow this theory because it theoretically would reduce conflicts within the state and encourage a sense of unity, making individuals more manageable and easier to govern. It could also reduce the rate of poverty within a state.
The disadvantage of radicalism is that it does not encourage innovation or competition in the same way that capitalism does. Due to significantly less fiscal reward being offered for being a producer, it does not encourage individuals to take risks in pursuit of great benefit. It also calls for radical change in the international economic system and trade which would be incredibly difficult if not impossible to enact.
I find this theory compelling morally, as it seeks to resolve huge, obvious issues inherent in modern society. However, I find it to be problematic practically in that it is extremely impractical and seems as if it could easily lead to tyranny and the formation of authoritarian regimes by giving the state so much control and influence over the economy. I believe that it is an incredibly idealistic perspective but not something that would ever work long-term in the real world.
8.Radicalism is a social theory based on the idea of economics and capitalism is destroying the world. There are also two ideologies that stem from this theory that is deemed to be the most persuasive in the radical perspective: Marxism and dependency theory. The factors that affect this theory are more economically rather than politically. The state is an agent of international capitalism, and the international system is highly stratified. There are two views of the state, the Instrumental view which is executing agent of the bourgeoisie, and the structural state which is a state that operates within the structure of the capital system and is driven to expand within the system. Neither system believes in the national interest or real sovereignty– states act for economic reasons. Also, private interests control labor and market exchanges, creating bondages from which lower classes try to free themselves. The advantage of the radical perspective is that it cares a lot about economics and believes that economic factors mean power rather than like economic liberalism, which believes that economic interdependence is important for international cooperation. States might want to follow it because the theory does a good job of proving that wealth is a source of power and politics are driven by economic motivations. While that all sounds nice there are disadvantages to the theory. A huge disadvantage of the theory goes under Marxism which eliminates the concept of privacy, such as no private ownership, and no self-employment. The disadvantages of Marxism and radicalism are that they can lead to communism and can develop into state tyranny by repressing individual freedom. This is a key part of why states may not want to follow it. It is giving up a lot of freedom. My belief over this theory is that it is not compelling at all, in fact, I'm not too fond of it one bit. This theory reminds me a lot of Cuba how the ideologies sound good but in fact, it can lead to a poor economic and life situation. It portrays a perfect society and does not take into account the essential weaknesses of human beings like selfishness and greediness.
9.For radicalism, some of the basics are that in their perspective, if the economy was to be left alone, then the whole market would eventually destroy the environment. Additionally, if this were to happened, radicalism believes that if the economy were to be left alone, then unemployment would increase. For radicalism, the state really does not play any role for them, it is very little significant and has very little contribution to their beliefs. They believed that free markets was critical to increasing the total welfare that a nation’s economy could offer to its people. With their focus on the advantages of markets, they enhanced free international trade and were against monopolies, with the addition of state-imposed reduction of private markets like limited price controls. In my opinion, I feel like there no advantages or reason why the state should consider following the theory of radicalism. The disadvantages of radicalism is that they have contributed immensely to the branches of the economy's regulation and it's crisis. Many radicals take extreme measures to prove or distribute their beliefs, including violent groups. I think that the state may not consider this theory because of the extreme measures that radicals use to express their perspective, which often creates more chaos than good. To a certain extent, a lot of radicals are driven by religious beliefs and often make decisions based on this beliefs. This often could impact the state and economy in a very negative and violently way. I consider this theory very troubling and concerning if the state were to consider follow it. I feel like this theory is very controversial because it is very unpredictable on how someone will use it. Radicalism mentions that a lot of people follow this theory because of grievances, injustices, victimization and other similar circumstances. Which this could cloud people's judgement and make decisions that could affect the government and economy.
10.In simple terms, Mercantilism is the circulation of money. Bullionism is another name for Mercantilism, and that is it in its simplest form. Still, overall, its theory consists of the government choosing to seek and regulate the economy and trade in order to have a domestic industry… though it is slightly at the expense of a multitude of other countries. It's more known/associated with policies restricting imports so that gold, silver, and precious metal stocks are increasing and domestic industries are protected. OVERALL, to sum up, number 1, is to max exports and minimize economic imports, promoting imperialism and traded goods. Some advantages consist of trade growth – leading to economic growth as said before. More profits, which can lead to entrepreneurship/job growth and even a more influential nation. So, all of those are reasons to follow it. However, places may not want to follow mercantilism because of a few IMPORTANT cons such as it being a finite source, and it was a fifty-fifty shot at being successful, and only happened to be with controlled productions. Countries could experience a lot of ridicule if production and trade did not all flow smoothly. High risk, high reward, though?
My personal opinion is that it works! It has worked for a long time, and I think even more so in the future, any kinks that may come up can be resolved with all the knowledge we have learned about it in the past. However, because it is ONLY finite, it can only work for a CERTAIN amount of time. Until that time, though, it works and it's pretty compelling. But then what after it? I guess it is only compelling until the final years it isn't and we need a new solution… but until then, I'd follow it and I support it!
11.Mercantilism maintains that states should limit imports and orient the economy towards as many exports as possible. The state's role in mercantilism is to weaken the currency in the foreign exchange market so that goods and labor are cheaper in the mercantilist country. This strategy ensures that countries following economic liberalism purchase from states with weaker currencies. This relationship exists between the Western world and most countries in East Asia. In East Asia, foreign investment and exports are high, which has led to more rapid growth in countries like South Korea and Taiwan than in other parts of the developing world.
An advantage of mercantilism is that relative gains are high. Every nonimperial developed nation has reached high-income status via the mercantilist economic strategy. South Korea and Taiwan have weak currencies compared to currencies like the Euro, Pound, or Dollar. A disadvantage of mercantilism is that it requires currency manipulation, which diminishes absolute gains between countries. When Japan weakened its currency and invested in automobile manufacturing, many manufacturing jobs that previously existed in the United States rapidly moved to Japan, leaving the rust belt impoverished with no time to transition its economy. White-collar work replaced manufacturing in the United States (which was better for GDP growth), but it is difficult to argue that Japan did not reap the vast majority of the benefits of trading with the United States.
It is hard not to find mercantilism compelling for developing countries, but it seems to have its limits. While countries in East Asia have had rapid development with mercantilism, it does seem to have its limitations. All the wealthiest countries (per capita, except Norway) still utilize strong currencies. While strong currencies seem to aid countries with weaker currencies in development, developed states with strong currencies seem to have an easier time maintaining a white-collar workforce. In addition to keeping white-collar employment, countries with stronger currencies seem to have an easier time investing in foreign countries than nations with weak currencies.
12.The theory I was assigned is economic liberalism. Economic liberalism is basically free production, distribution, and consumption of goods and services. It is an economic system organized on individual lines with the goal of making the most significant possible number of economic decisions made by individuals rather than an institution or organization. There are three main advantages of economic liberalism, the first being the economy is made up of individual people which means everyone's individual economy collectively makes the country's economy. Second, people make their own decisions regarding economic matters which gives people full freedom of their decisions. Third, people should be free to trade with whomever they want meaning economic liberalist say that there should be no compensation for people rather they should be given full freedom when it comes to trading. There are two forms of foundation when it comes to economic liberalism. The first one is private property which allows people to own their own property and use it according to how they wish. The second foundation is free and fair competition. Some of the disadvantages of economic liberalism would be the increase in unemployment and the increased dependence on foreign nations which resulted in economic inequality. The origin of economic liberalism was firstly analyzed by Adam Smith who was known as the father of economics. Arguments in favor of economic liberalism were advanced during the enlightenment period. In 1776 Adam Smith wrote a book called “The wealth of nations” which advocated the minimal interference of government in a market economy. Economic liberalism is still important today, it is the foundation of the global market economy. It has been the dominant economic philosophy since the end of World War 2, it has shaped global politics, and has led to the creation of several international organizations. For examples the WTO, EU, NAFTA, and the ASEAN. Economic liberalism favors markets unfettered by the government and maintains that the state has a legitimate role in providing public goods, and that is why I think economic liberalism is important and efficient.
13. The basics of economic liberalism are quit simple. They stress the importance of a free market economy and giving individuals and businesses the right to produce however they want and set their own prices. This theory discusses the government involvement in protecting things like property rights and market failures but doesn't expect the government to be involved when it comes to free trade and competition.
The advantages of economic liberalism is pretty obvious. Individuals and businesses have the right to a free market and are able to set their own prices leading to competition. Competition leads to a motivation to make profits which lead to a better overall outcome for the business.
A disadvantage of a completely free market and competition is that there can be room for absolute power in an industry. Its clear that in the US the big multi billion dollar companies are the ones who run everything and control there specific industries for example amazon.
I think a liberal economy is the best theory because it allows for flourishing and gives people more motivation to work for their income.
In this type of economy people have a desire to work because its understood that you get paid for the quality and quantity of work. If businesses are able to regulate their own prices they can use tactics and create competition to create more profits for themselves.
Mercantilism is an economic practice by which governments used their economies to augment state power at the expense of other countries. Governments sought to ensure that exports exceeded imports and to accumulate wealth in the form of bullion (mostly gold and silver). Mercantilism was an economic system of trade that spanned from the 16th century to the 18th century. Mercantilism was based on the idea that a nation's wealth and power were best served by increasing exports and so involved increasing trade.
Mercantilism leads to more trade, which will lead to economic growth. The increasing trade will certainly spike demand and hence industrial growth will follow. It is not confined to any one industry. Export of foods will lead to growth in agriculture
What are the disadvantages of your theory? Why might a state not want to follow it?
Brought about many acts against humanity, including slavery and an imbalanced system of trade. During Great Britain's mercantilist period, colonies faced periods of inflation and excessive taxation, which caused great distress. It also failed to account for the benefits of trade, such as comparative advantage and economies of scale. When countries specialize in the production of goods for which they enjoy a comparative advantage, trade can result in mutually beneficial deals.
Honestly i'm not sure I understand it as much as I should. I never heard of this theory before so when I read up on it I was trying to get a break down of how it works and how it effects the people that uses. From what I have researched from it is that, it is used to build economic wealth and a lot of European use it to gain money which gave certain people power to control or have access to things that they want.
15.Economic liberalism is the political theory that puts the government control at a minimum. This can mean that the decisions that are made economically is based on the individual's opinion. Markets and private ownership of capital assets are essential to this theory and makes that unique. The market's role is to provide and protect free trade as well as open competition. An advantage of this theory is the limited government interference that can lead to marginal profitability with private owners. According to page 272 of the textbook, economic liberalism has led to the emergence of offshore financial centers, such as the Cayman Islands. A state can find this advantageous because of the wealth funds have been able to move quickly with little to no hold across national boundaries. By taking advantage of currency differentials and buying and selling new financial instruments, cushion states that are declining on natural resources they have relied on for capital, designed these for their benefit.
The disadvantages of this theory of the globalization of finance can be determined by previous financial crisis, such as the 1990s. What occurred here ended up causing the GDP to drop by 2%. It not only occurred in one country but rather a crisis that spread through multiple countries such as Brazil and Russia. The exploitation possibility can be an underlying fear of using this method/ theory. Derivatives are something that should be thought of as well because they spread risk as well as the flow of capital.
The depredation that African countries have faced because of the exploitation of goods for another country is hard to completely side with because there's countries that could have the same chance if this had never happened, therefore I feel indifferent about this theory and ideology. Opportunistic peoples may have a hard time finding flaws in this theory because of the lackluster interference of from the government. My idea may not be completely on the side of saying this theory is problematic because I would love to get the chance to make money and have money flowing in and out of different countries is hard to resist.
We are a professional custom writing website. If you have searched a question and bumped into our website just know you are in the right place to get help in your coursework.
Yes. We have posted over our previous orders to display our experience. Since we have done this question before, we can also do it for you. To make sure we do it perfectly, please fill our Order Form. Filling the order form correctly will assist our team in referencing, specifications and future communication.
2. Fill in your paper’s requirements in the "PAPER INFORMATION" section and click “PRICE CALCULATION” at the bottom to calculate your order price.
3. Fill in your paper’s academic level, deadline and the required number of pages from the drop-down menus.
4. Click “FINAL STEP” to enter your registration details and get an account with us for record keeping and then, click on “PROCEED TO CHECKOUT” at the bottom of the page.
5. From there, the payment sections will show, follow the guided payment process and your order will be available for our writing team to work on it.