Explore BrainMass

Not a ZERO - SUM - GAME, swim or sink end result is same

This content was STOLEN from BrainMass.com - View the original, and get the already-completed solution here!

For a world in which international trade would be based only on the differences featured in the Heckscher-Ohlin theory, the shift from no trade to free trade is like a zero-sum game." Do you agree or disagree? Why?

The Ricardian model emphasizes on theory of comparative advantage, viewed to be the most important concept in international trade theory. In a Ricardian model, countries specialize in producing what they produce best.

The Heckscher-Ohlin theory states that countries should produce and export goods that require resources (factors) that are abundant and import goods that require resources in short supply.

The latter theory was an alternative to the former model of comparative advantage. However, Heckscher-Ohlin did not provide accuracy in its forecasts. Despite that it did present a remarkable solution from the theoretical point of view by adopting neoclassical price mechanism into the International Trade Theory.

It may be borne in mind that 'demand plays a pivotal role so far the determination of equilibrium composition of output is concerned'.

© BrainMass Inc. brainmass.com October 25, 2018, 6:21 am ad1c9bdddf

Solution Preview


International trade, in simple terms, may be defined as trade or business between two nations not limited by national borders and boundaries.

The difference between domestic and international trade is that the latter is more costly due to tariffs, time costs, transportation, legal and cultural systems.

Rise and decline in the values of currencies of countries involved in trade badly affect the traders. It creates trade imbalances which have to be settled by the respective governments of both countries. Movement of foreign exchange rate greatly affects international trade.

Non-Zero-Sum ...

See Also This Related BrainMass Solution

Titanic Movie - Analysis

Please help me with ideas/suggestions/information to point me in the right direction for the following:

Analyze the movie through ONE of the systems world theories (Marx/Mills OR Weber/Ritzer) and ONE of the life world theories (Durkheim OR Parsons) and compare the systems world theory with the lifeworld theory. You still have the option of doing ALL the theories, of course, or comparing Marx to Durkheim AND Parsons if you want, etc. But you only HAVE to do one of each.

What are some of the major characteristics of this film that define it as a "blockbuster."

1. After defining what makes the film a "blockbuster," consider the critiques of the "blockbuster" movie from Marx/Mills and Weber/Ritzer. Discuss what kind of relationship their theories see between those who produce and make the movies and the movie audience (or public) itself. In what ways would these theories see the movie as "colonizing" the lifeworld of the moviegoer?

2. After considering the systems world perspective, access how the theories of Durkheim and Parsons would explain this film and the "blockbuster" movie generally.

3. What kind of relationship do Durkheim and Parsons see existing between those who produce movies and the movie audience? In what ways would they consider the film to have enhanced the viewing audience's lifeworld?

4. How and in what ways these do these terms actually can explain the movie and its social effects. ( For example, how Durkheim's notion of "solidarity" and "ritual reaffirmation" in this and other films -- e.g., "Amelie," "Groundhog Day" -- might relate to courtship and mating in a functional way.) or "false consciousness" or "McDonaldization".

5. Having shown how the competing SW and LW perspectives would assess the film, compare/contrast the considered strengths and weaknesses of the various arguments.

6. Some possible considerations: does the film seem to be more reflective of "false consciousness" or "solidarity"; is it predictable because of "McDonaldization" or because all movies reflect a mythic genre; is this film simply a mass produced "commodity" or a "sacred" and "ritual" event; does the film mirror the objectification of women in our society or does it reflect stronger, more assertive roles for women in today's world?

7. After having assessed how this film could be seen from both the SW (systems world) and the LW (lifeworld) perspective, consider which perspective you find to be most applicable to this particular film. Does this movie indeed seem to you to reflect "the colonization of the lifeworld," in either a Marxist or Weberian sense? Or would you agree more with Durkheim that it reflects important "functional" purposes? If so, what specifically are they?

8. Show how both the SW and the LW theories would explain the blockbuster film but in the end, CHOOSE one perspective over the other.

9. Draw on and discuss your own personal impressions of this and another films as well as your lifelong experience as a moviegoer.

10. Movies are a social phenomenon but they are also a personal one: your experiences with movies are an aspect of your life within modern society and are therefore relevant sociological evidence.

11. Include some kind of overall consideration of whether and in what ways you consider the "emotional possession" of movies to reflect either the SW or the LW theories.

View Full Posting Details