OK. Only 850 words done out of my first 5000-word essay, but hey...I've had a 'butcher's' at the new quiz...
As an overarching observation, given that it is scored by deviation from a neutral centre-line (same way we score candidates for selection to the airforce, as it happens) then to an extent if the reader doesn't understand the question it doesn't really matter. I struggled with some of the Prot vs Free Trade stuff because it was (about 93 million miles) over my head. Furthermore, in some areas (mostly those I'm bringing to your attention here) the questions are too long-winded, which seems to me to be an attempt to ensure understanding but which actually mitigate against understanding due to their length. I have suggested alternatives. If I have failed to incorporate a key point in my suggested edit, please let me know what it was for my own reference.
In
Protectionist vs Free Trade1) It is sometimes necessary to erect trade barriers around hostile or unconcerned foreign imports, despite a larger belief in the virtues of a free market.Delete, ‘despite a larger belief in the virtues of a free market’. Unnecessary.
2) Your nation can sell blue jeans for prices between $20-$25 per pair. Foreign competition can do so for $10 if allowed to enter the country at free market rates. However, this would eventually force your domestic jean makers to go out of business. In this case, some kind of import tax on the foreign made jeans is not only necessary but patriotic.Too long...
2) Foreign nations can produce goods at half the price of your nation. If they were allowed free access to your market, this would force your manufacturers out of business. In this case, some kind of import tax on the foreign goods is not only necessary but patriotic.
3) Economics Nobel prize winner and trade theorist Paul Krugman once famously stated that, "If there were an Economist’s Creed, it would surely contain the affirmations 'I understand the Principle of Comparative Advantage' and 'I advocate Free Trade'." In considering this quote of Krugman's, you generally...
Maybe there is merit in subliminal education, but do you need to attribute the quote? Why not just have...
"If there were an Economist’s Creed, it would surely contain the affirmations 'I understand the Principle of Comparative Advantage' and 'I advocate Free Trade'."
4) Your nation is developing its industrial capacity. However, you cannot compete with the prices of foreign made goods due to serious inequities in the labor market abroad. In order to compete and build your domestic capacity, it is only reasonable to raise tariffs on the foreign industrial produced goods that can be sold in your nation.
5) One way a government should protect its domestic markets is through the use of the import tariff.
Er...4) and 5) appear to be repeats of 2)...
6) Should your nation base it's foreign policy on the fact that, according to Herman Daly, Ricardo's Theory of Comparative Advantage is now obsolete because the new globalization regime causes capital to flow to wherever costs are lowest- that is. As this proves Absolute Advantage as opposed to Comparative Advantage, it is sound foreign policy. Fuckwit nurse doesn’t understand the question! Is it your intention to weed out fuckwit nurses (and others who don’t understand the question)?
7) The Common Agricultural Policy of the European Union represents a sound policy that keeps Europe’s internal markets strong, and allows them to profit from a production surplus that would otherwise cause such a drop in prices that the entire market would go under. That other developing nations may be harmed by the policy is none of the EU member nations’ concerns.OK, but unnecessarily long. How about...
7) The Common Agricultural Policy of the European Union represents a sound policy that keeps Europe’s internal markets strong. That other developing nations may be harmed by the policy is none of the EU member nations’ concerns.
8) Adam Smith’s Law of Comparative Advantage states: ”That each member in a group of trading partners should specialize in and produce the goods in which they possess lowest opportunity costs relative to other trading partners. This specialization permits trading partners to then exchange their goods produced as a function of specialization.” Generally speaking, I find this to be true as protectionist states are simply too short sighted to understand and accept the long term gains.Again, fuckwit nurse doesn’t understand, but even so – why not just bung in the quote without attribution or explanatory caveat?
10) An established economic theory holds that: ’The prosperity of a nation is dependent upon its supply of capital, and that the global volume of international trade is "unchangeable." Economic assets or capital, are represented by bullion (gold, silver, and trade value) held by the state, which is best increased through a positive balance of trade with other nations (exports minus imports) and assumes wealth and monetary assets are identical.’ This theory suggests that the ruling government should advance these goals by playing a protectionist role in the economy; by encouraging exports and discouraging imports, notably through the use of tariffs and subsidies and I agree with this.
‘I refer the honourable gentleman to the answer I gave a few moments ago.’
In
Militaristic vs Pacifistic6) Everyone needs spligets to live in the modern world, they are simply the engine of human survival. Death Island if the only place in the world that makes functioning, perfect spligets. The government of Death Island selectively sells spligets to its allies very cheaply, but quite clearly makes its money selling them at enormous profit to non-allies, and refuses to sell to its enemies at all. You nation receives spligets at a rate ten times the allied price. A motion is introduced in your parliament to send in an armed force to "negotiate" a better deal with the Death Island government. This force will likely be successful. As an MP in this parliament you would never vote for such an unethical use of force.Too long-winded. How about...
6) Another nation has resources you need. They sell them to their allies very cheaply, but at enormous profit to non-allies, and refuse to sell to their enemies at all. Your nation pays ten times the allied price. A motion is introduced in your parliament to send in an armed force to "negotiate" a better deal. This force will likely be successful. As an MP in this parliament you would never vote for such an unethical use of force.
7) Your nation has been undergoing covert raids by a hostile neighboring state for many years. The international community will not act because nothing can ever be proven, yet your intelligence agency knows full well from where the attacks originate and that they are carried out by hostile paramilitary forces receiving covert support from their home nation. In order to end the threat forever it will be necessary to completely destroy the home base of this force, a small city of 250,000 people. As the military leader in charge of this force you commit to destroying the threat by any and all means necessary.OK. A bit long-winded, but nevertheless necessary. Just one observation – change ‘undergoing’ – which implies co-operation – to ‘subject to’, which does not.
8) Several regions of the world contain a majority of the resources you need to keep your own people living the high life. You are duty bound as the nation's current head of state to do whatever it takes on any level to maintain the supply of these resources to your nation at the current cheap prices they've always been obtained for.
Perhaps...
The majority of resources the nation needs are in other nations. The nation should do whatever it takes to maintain the supply of these resources.
10) The Bush era phrase "If you're not with me, you are my enemy" lacks the identification of gray areas that are necessary in successful non-military diplomacy.What’s wrong with just...
“If you’re not with me, you are my enemy.”
11) In a situation where the nation is under constant mid level threat from very low-tech, unorganized, and scattered forces it is appropriate and sensible to attack or forcibly coerce all the nations from which these threats originate (though none are expressly using national origin as a basis for their attacks) into taking steps to stop the creation of these threats, no matter what the underlying cause may be. If these nations do not take the appropriate steps as outlined, it is paramount that all options for military force be exercised to make them take the appropriate steps.How about...
11) Nations that harbour irregular, guerrilla or terrorist forces with hostile intent towards our nation should be coerced into dealing with the threat and, where they are unable, forced to stand aside and allow external military forces to counter the threat.
In
Big Govt vs Small Govt10) Funding the arts and artists, and giving them the creative space they need to complete their works, provides much needed artistic expression to society at large, where without this funding many artistic projects would never be realized. As a result of this I always support government programs that provide funding these artists.Seems long-winded. How about...
10) Funding the arts and artists provides much needed artistic expression to society. It is right to support government funding of these artists.
In
Individual vs. Social1) Rugged Individualism should be a way of life that everyone aspires too.How about either...
1) Rugged Individualism should be a way of life that everyone aspires
to.
Or, if you want to be a real Grammar Nazi...(
)
1) Rugged Individualism should be a way of life to which everyone aspires.
That's 'bout it on my first read-through.