Sprint LTE 6:41 PM 77% Activation question 3.1, due Thursday Sugar is a major em

Question

Sprint LTE 6:41 PM 77% Activation question 3.1, due Thursday Sugar is a major employer in Michigan and in several other Midwestern states. The Dallas Fed's Web site reported in 2002 that each job saved in the sugar industry cost American consumers $826,104. That page has since been taken down. The dollar amount today may be higher or lower, but the subsidies are still in place today. Should the American consumer be expected to pay such a high price to protect the sugar industry (sugar is important for the state of Michigan!)? Should the government place a limit on how many dollars per job consumers must pay in order to save a certain industry? If so, what should that limit be? If not, why not? Should certain industries be protected, regardless of the cost? Why or why not? Be sure to cite your sources Previous Next Dashboard Calendar To Do Notifications Inbox

Explanation / Answer

when the cost of subisidies are going to increase, it is better to go with alternatives. In this example US government is providing huge subsidies to sugar industry and the farmers who are cultivating sugar cane. but at the end it is resulting negative result to both government and to the farmers also. istead of this, encourage the farmers which can provide better returns than this. it also helps the government to minimize its subsidies on sugar industry. the same amount can be utilized any progressive activities to the farmers and industrialists only.

if it is not possible due to any factor, then it is better to go with some kind of limitations like minimizing the pay volume of subsidy to the job holders, to the industrialists in the form of incentives, and to the farmers also. there must be kept a seeling in this aspect to each job holder, to each firm producing sugar and each farmer for a limited land.

protection of certain industries in an economy to protect the people survive in the industry is good and acceptable. But the question is how long it is? when the same problems are continuing in the same way, it is better to go with better alternatives than this. now the situation of US is good, financially strong, so can be affordable. if situations are reversed, if any finaical crisis or any other problem raises, how these are going to be protected? hence, when a problem is accumulating, it is better to go with some other better alternatives rather this.

Related Questions

Navigate

• Browse (All)
• Browse S
• Subjects

---

---

Integrity-first tutoring: explanations and feedback only — we do not complete graded work. Learn more.