Consider two countries, A and B. Assume that both countries have identical physical endowments of iron ore. In country A, any profits made from mining the iron ore are subject to confiscation by the government. While in country B, there is no such risk. How does the risk of expropriation affect the economic success of the two nations? Which nation would you think would be richer? Why? Use vocabulary learned in our textbook chapters to explain. Given your answer to the above, why is there widespread political support for government policies that expropriate resources from some groups for the sole purpose of handing them out to other groups?

Please note: for part i. of the question - the cost of copying is changing for the FOLLOWER COUNTRY (Country 2).

Suppose Country A can produce 200 tons of capital-intensive goods or 200 tons of labor-intensive goods in one day.  Suppose Country B can produce 80 tons of capital-intensive goods or 160 tons of labor-intensive goods in one day. What is one possible price of capital-intensive goods (in terms of labor-intensive goods) that would make BOTH countries better off as the result of trade?

Two countries, Alpha and Beta consider the construction of a bridge across a river that separates them. The bridge would increase commerce and trade in both countries. If they both contribute to the building of this bridge, then each receive a profit of $32 million. However, if they both fail to contribute, they are each left with a profit of just $30 million. If one country contributes and the other one does not, then the country that does not contribute is a “free rider” and will receive a profit of $35 million. The contributing player spends a lot of money building the bridge and is left with a profit of only $28 million. 5.1. Fill out the payoff matrix (below) for the game by including all the elements (players, their strategies, and their payoffs).                           5.2. Assume the players do not cooperate. Solve the game for the Nash equilibrium (find out the strategy played by each player in equilibrium). What is the payoff each gets…

Consider a 2x2x2 Heckscher-Ohlin model with two countries, Australia and Japan. Australia produces two goods, wine and software. Production of wine is relatively labor intensive, and Australia is relatively capital abundant. a. Using the production possibility frontier diagram, show how Australia can be better off once it engages in trade. Explain your answer. b. Derive the Stopler-Samuelson and Rybczynski theorems, using fully labelled graphs to support your answers. c. Suppose Australia imposes a tariff on importing goods, which raises the relative price of the import-competing sector's output. How does the Stolper-Samuelson theorem predict about changes in factor prices in Australia? Why? Explain your answer. c. Suppose the amount of capital stock increased in Australia. What is the prediction of the Rybczynski theorem on changes in the production amounts of wine and software in Australia (use the production possibility frontier diagram to illustrate your answer, fully label…

Can part F be answered/further explained?

Suppose the Heckscher-Ohlin model was modified to allow for technology differences to exist between two trading countries. How would this change the Heckscher-Ohlin model's findings on factor prices, goods prices, and the gains from trade for each factor/industry over time? Also, explain how you would determine which good a country would import and which good a country would export.

please I need solutions to the questions

In the Heckscher-Ohlin-Vanek model, labour productivities in the production of a good in the different countries     must be equal to each other     must be equal to productivity of capital in producing the same good     must be equal to each other and the capital productivities for the same good in different countries     none of the above.

Economics Question