The United States, as it began its long and successful growth in the early 19th century, consciously promoted domestic production through such activities as tariffs, Clay's American System, and many direct subsidies to railroads, canal companies,
farmers (free land) etc. Today we view this blatant example of large scale and extensive import-substitution industrialization as having been very successful. Comment on this.
This is an interesting point and emphasizes that economic models tend to be a-historical. That is, they lack the historic perspective; and thus may be misleading as guides to long run issues, such as economic growth. This also suggests that trade policy per se is almost certainly not sufficient to explain why some countries grow and others do not.
You might also like to view...
The table above gives the demand schedule for peas. Between point C and point D, the price elasticity of demand is
A) elastic. B) unit elastic. C) 0.75. D) 3.00.
Country A and country B both increase their capital stock by one unit. Output in country A increases by 12 while output in country B increases by 15 . Other things the same, diminishing returns implies that country A is
a. richer than Country B. If Country A adds another unit of capital, output will increase by more than 12 units. b. richer than Country B. If Country A adds another unit of capital, output will increase by less than 12 units. c. poorer than Country B. If Country A adds another unit of capital, output will increase by more than 12 units. d. poorer than Country B. If Country A adds another unit of capital, output will increase by less than 12 units.