What's wrong with the following statement? The economic costs of international trade usually exceed the economic benefits in both the short-term and long-term.
I am looking at this statement in the terms of: the opportunity or economic cost of international trade in the short term would be more expensive (thus NOT exceed the economic benefits) due to the fact that a firm cannot accurately predict what the cost of products or goods will do for the firm in the long run. In the long run, the opportunity cost will exceed the economic benefits due to the planning and trends of "what can I miss out on by not buying products from 60% of the other companies in the industry". Am I reading this correctly, and am I on the right track?
While international trade has been present throughout much of history, its economic, social, and political importance have been on the rise in recent centuries, mainly because of industrialization, advanced transportation, globalization, multinational corporations, and outsourcing.
What's wrong with the following statement? The economic costs of international trade usually exceed the ...