Explain the protection theory, in terms of economics?
542543
You weren't really specific with the question.\n\nThere are a site that talk about asset protection theory:\nhttp://www.assetprotectiontheory.com/\n\nIt deals with sheltering assets among other things.\n\nYou might also be talking about countries.  Sometimes, countries place tariffs on imports to make domestic goods more desirable.  This might lead to a better industry inside the countries and prevents foreign dumping.  There's more info here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tariff
278615
Economist always look at the bottom spectrum of the scale, which never includes people or their welfare. In a perfect world like the Romans had for Centuries even will collapse. They used War and slavery to build their empire. The Slave owners of the DEEP SOUTH, During the Confederacy used these same principles to build the DEEP SOUTH of America. The Republic of China, and the Communist are a mirror of this same type of Government. Same thing in India. World Markets can't compete with an in-slaved Government system, and I say it should be opposed. China right now is putting pressure on the U.S. Auto-makers with this labor situation. I think it was poor investment; because you gave all your bargaining power away, and are at their mercy now to what they will. I believe that with a free market, which includes the vote of the populous, and their concerns. The market will thrive, and you attain greater returns back into the market. That's my observation.
914063
The definition of economics is the allocation of scarce resources.  Either way you go, private or nationalized, someone goes "without".  The difference is that in the USA, most people get to choose that which they go without.  In Great Britain, you're taxed and then told what services you'll be provided. However, either way, nobody gets everything right away and some people never see the care they want or need.
476775
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_elasticity_of_demand\n\nHave fun with econ.
579733
Reagonomics is the term used to describe the economic policies of Reagan during the 1980s.  He assumed office during a period of high inflation and unemployment and left office with things mostly fine.  It's up for debate whether it was his policies that helped or other external factors.\n\nThe main idea behind Reaganomics has 2 key ideas\n-Lower taxes\n-Have a smaller government\n\nAnyway, it's a topic that's still pretty heavily debated.  See the Wiki for the full details.
389124
I'm generally for free trade.  It makes the world more "efficient" because each country is specializing and exporting its excess.  Using protective tariffs to get foreign products more expensive just makes the consumers of the country pay higher prices overall.  The country will eventually fall behind the other countries of the world.\n\nProtectionism might save some jobs in the country overall, but the extra wages are going to be offset by a higher cost of living.  It might be slightly different if you have an obnoxious country completely undercutting and taking a loss to drive out competition, but I'm more talking about the normal case.
627678
"If a country's major industries lose to foreign competition, the loss of jobs and tax revenue can severely impair parts of that country's economy. Protective tariffs have been used as a measure against this possibility. However, protective tariffs have disadvantages as well. The most notable is that they increase the price of the good subject to the tariff, disadvantaging consumers of that good or manufacturers who use that good to produce something else: for example a tariff on food can increase poverty, while a tariff on steel can make automobile manufacture less competitive. They can also backfire if countries whose trade is disadvantaged by the tariff impose tariffs of their own, resulting in a trade war and disadvantaging both sides."
475223
I’ve never studied Economics, so please forgive me if I write something stupid...\n1. What is the reason for globalisation? It’s the needs and the expansion of companies.\n2.  What can be the consequence? Strong interdependence and a lot more. We know from history that a best example what can happen was the Great Depression of the 1930s or the Oil Crisis in the 1970s. In the present news are all about this problem. If there were no duties, the poor areas (Africa, Asia, South America) could either rise or fall even deeper.\n\nThat’s all I can figure out on my own.\nHere’s a more professional aid:
817718
Be willing to accept a lower standard of living. The expansion of the economy is due in large part to dumping the gold standard and instituting the Federal Reserve. \n\nGo back and look at the history that caused these changes.\n\nAs for the income tax, how would you propose paying for public goods?
658852
Where did you get that thought. I have studied Economics and there is nothing that says it is beneficial to an economy if a few people hold greater wealth.
1140485
It would take a whole course to give you a comprehensive response. You might consider signing up for one at a local college.\n\nMeanwhile, in a nutshell, here's what's happening at this time in the economy: The Fed is always concerned with keeping economic growth at an acceptably high level and keeping the rate of price inflation at an acceptably low level.\n\nWhen the economy gets cooking, the money supply expands (that's actually what inflation is). The business community spends more to satisfy their higher level of business activity, and consumers feel rich so they spend more.\n\nThe US economy has been on a five-year expansion. It's reaching the level where inflation is becoming a serious problem. So the Fed has been raising interest rates to try to keep growth from getting too fast. But consumers have borrowed huge, huge amounts, including in mortgages, so if the Fed "slams on the brakes" too hard by raising interest rates too much, the risk is that a severe recession or worse could set in, triggered by that mountain of debt.\n\nMeanwhile, other economies, especially China and India, have been growing at very high rates. They are gobbling up all of the commodities they can find - oil and gas, lumber, base metals, etc. That adds to inflation.\n\nWe are in the midst of a commodities boom. Mining and energy stocks have come a long way up but have a long way still to go. Many companies have done poorly for several years because they don't operate well in a higher-inflation environment (their costs go up faster than they can raise prices).\n\nThat's a lot of information in one short message. As I said, look into taking an economics course. I was a chemist once, but enrolled in business school and loved every minute of it because of the fascinating and useful things I learned.\n\nBest of success.
1086924
The three economic questions? \n\nSheesh...do your own homework!
369761
The basic premise of economics is supply v. demand. If the supply is not there to meet the demand, the economy suffers on a macro level.\n\nAn example:\n"Not too long ago, almost one quarter of the trees in the\nAppalachian forests were American chestnuts. They helped\nsupport not only wildlife but the people living among\nthem. Chestnuts were an important cash crop for many\nfamilies. As year-end holidays approached, nuts by the\nrailroad car were sold and shipped to northeastern cities.\nChestnut timber, strong and rot resistant, was prized for\nbuilding barns, fences, furniture, and other products. ...\nFirst detected in 1904, an Asian fungus to which native\nchestnuts had little resistance appeared in New York City\ntrees. The blight spread quickly, and by 1950 the American\nchestnut was virtually extinct except for occasional root\nsprouts that also became infected. Organizations such\nas the American Chestnut Foundation are working with\nplant breeders to develop a disease resistant strain and\nrestore it to the eastern forests."\n\nWhen was the last time you heard of anyone roasting chestnuts on an open fire during the holidays?\n\nThe families that sold chestnuts lost their income, the wholesalers lost their supply and the retailers of chestnuts lost their customers for chestnuts. The flow of money stopped when it comes to chestnuts.\n\nYou could draw the same conclusions when discussing the economic implications of commercial fishing regulations. If you want to utilize the microeconomic implications you could look at any single business entity that was lost as a result of regulation. There must be thousands of examples, like hunting expedition companies, the fur trappers of the old west...
1165649
Yes, I think the government is obligated to regulate, and intervene, in a market economy. \n\nMarket economics concentrate wealth (the rich get richer while the poor get poorer), sabotage human values (if people value something, then it must be worth money, and if it isn't worth money, then it must have no human value), punish altruism and cooperation (which are anti-competitive), encourage deception and information hiding (to create competitive advantage), wreck the environment (it's rarely economic to use resources in a sustainable or non-polluting manner), and exploit consumers (who only exist to give businesses their money).\n\nSo far, unregulated market economies have, consistently, turned into economic, social, and environmental disasters. Just look at Britain and America in the late 19th century, or Indochina and Latin America in the 1990s. The former Soviet countries aren't looking too good right now, either, and I'm a little worried about the USA's current economic policies.
1185354
Perhaps it would help if you were to enlighten me.  I've never heard of "engineering insurance."  Do engineers need special insurance?
40867
I assume you are asking in a business context.\n\nAdvantage\nSelf-insurance makes economic sense when the premiums you would pay far outweigh the risks you are covering (the yearly damages costs less than the premiums)\n\nDisadvantage\nYou can't predict the future, the once in two hundred year event can happen any year,  (a Tsunami etc), so you could end up with a huge loss.\n\nThe solution that self-insuring companies follow is to self-insure everything below a disaster and only take out insurance for events above a certain amount (for example above $x million).
226391
Well first, there is an enourmous amount of data to interpret. Then, there's the inter-relationships between the data to correlate (e.g Consumer Price Index, Producer Price Index to other inflationary indicators). All of this analysis is likely done by scientists- and there is some esoteric stuff as well- then the policy advisor takes all this vast information from the scientist and considers economic policy. There are two basic types of policies: monetary and fiscal and usually they try to work in conjunction with one another. \nOverall the economy is comprised of C=Consumer Spending G=Government Spending I=Industry spending X-M (Imports-Exports which is trade).\nSO, economic policites would look at all of the above and set interest rates, or determine whether to advise an increase in government spending, or in some cases, create trade tariffs...\nBut underlying all this policy is obviously intense political pressure.