Freedom of individual choice is possible to the extent that the market provides options for work, developing a business, and purchasing goods and services (so long as you can afford them).
Hope this helps :)
Answer:
Jobs argument
Explanation:
-The national-security argument states that some industries have to be protected by imposing tariffs to maintain the local production in case of a war.
-The unfair-competition argument says that the domestic market has to be protected when there is unfair competition because companies from other countries are subject to different regulations.
-Using-protection-as-a-bargaining-chip argument states that the threat of imposing a restriction can help to eliminate a restriction that was imposed by another country.
-Infant-industry argument says that new industries have to be protected because they don't have economies of scales that their competitors from others countries have.
-The jobs argument claims that the trade with other countries eliminates the local jobs.
According to this, the answer is that the senator is using the jobs argument to argue for the trade restriction on steel rods because he claims that it is necessary to impose those restrictions to protect the workers from losing their jobs.
Answer:
The amount of the tax on a bottle of wine is $5 per bottle. Of this amount, the burden that falls on consumers is $3 per bottle, and the burden that falls on producers is $2 per bottle. True or False: The effect of the tax on the quantity sold would have been larger if the tax had been levied on producers.
Explanation:
The amount of the tax on a bottle of wine is $5 ($3 + $2).
The burden on consumers is $3 ($9 - $6), which is the difference between the after-tax purchase price and the before-tax purchase price for consumers. This implies that the burden passed to consumers is $3 out of the total tax burden of $5.
The burden on producers is $2 ($6 - $4) which represents the difference between before-tax selling price and the after-tax selling price for the producers. This means that the burden passed to producers is $2 out of the total tax burden of $5.
If the tax burden were passed to the producers alone, the selling price would have been more than $11 ($6 + 5). This would have reduced demand for wine as consumers would have been forced to bear the total burden. This would have made the tax unequitable. This would have been the case unless demand is inelastic. That means that the total demanded is not sensitive to price increases.
C refusing to share information
<span>Consumer behavior ...............
</span>