Among the given statements pick one that best interprets the effects of US-China trade war on US households. Select one – the most appropriate answer.

Question

BlackTom AI · Accepted Answer

The task presents a question asking us to select the interpretation that best captures the effects of the US-China trade war on US households, and it provides a single stated option to evaluate.

Option provided: "Households became worse-off, however high-income households suffered the most."

We start by unpacking what this statement is claiming: it asserts an overall negative impact on households, and it further specifies that the negative impact was greatest for high-income households.

First, consider the general logic of a trade war: tariffs tend to raise prices on imported goods and materials, which can reduce real purchasing power for households. If tariffs are broadly passed through to consumer prices, many households could face higher costs for a wide range of goods. This supports the part of the statement that households became worse-off. However, the claim that high-income households suffered the most is less straightforward.

- One potential line of reasoning could be that high-income households consume more goods and have larger investment portfolios exposed to tariff-driven market volatility, perhaps leading to greater opportunity costs or financial losses. This would support the idea that some high-income groups could be disproportionately affected financially. 
- Conversely, there is a strong counterpoint: lower- and middle-income households typically spend a larger share of their income on basic goods subject to tariff-induced price increases (such as food and everyday items). Economists often argue that tariff announcements and trade frictions disproportionately burden lower-income households because they spend a larger portion of their income on affected goods, making the net effect potentially more negative for them in terms of price pain and budget impact. This would challenge the claim that high-income households suffered the most.

Given these competing considerations, the statement makes a specific claim about relative impact by income group that would require nuanced empirical data (price pass-through, consumption basket, compensation through wages or subsidies, and household balance sheets) to verify. Without such data, the assertion that high-income households suffered the most is debatable and may rely on particular methodology or context.

Why this option might be questionable: it generalizes the distribution of harm across households and presumes high-income groups bore the greatest burden, which is not universally supported by empirical findings that often show greater price impact on lower-income households. It also treats the effects as uniform across all households, ignoring regional differences, sector-specific exposures, and changes over time as tariffs and policies evolved.

Why the statement could be considered plausible in certain analyses: if the analysis emphasizes financial market volatility, business investment impacts, or tariff-related costs borne through business networks that disproportionately affect higher-income individuals with more asset exposure, some may argue higher-income groups faced greater indirect costs.

In summary, the reasoning behind the option hinges on the interpretation of who bears the dominant burden from tariffs: consumer price increases affecting all households versus financial and opportunity costs affecting asset-rich or higher-income groups more. The claim that all households are worse off aligns with the general negative consumer price impact, but the claim that high-income households suffered the most requires careful, context-specific evidence and may not hold universally across all measures of burden.

Note on the empty answer choices: since no other options are provided for comparison, it is not possible to contrast this option against alternatives. If additional choices were present, we would evaluate each against mechanisms like price transmission, consumption patterns by income group, sectoral effects, and distributional impacts to determine which interpretation best matches observed or modeled outcomes.

econ_420_120255_249094 Midterm Exam 2

Among the given statements pick one that best interprets the effects of US-China trade war on US households. Select one – the most appropriate answer.

查看解析

登录即可查看完整答案

类似问题

Tariffs serve primarily to:

Protectionism is:

In week 3 we analysed a press statement of the US President Biden's administration regarding trade policy towards China. Apart from industrial policy (e.g. CHIPS Act), what other measure was mentioned in the document?

Which of the following is NOT one of the main instruments of trade policy?

Question at position 13 Rice imports to a nation under a quota limit of 8,500 tons are charged a tariff of 15 percent. Imports of rice above the quota limit are charged a tariff of 60 percent. This is an example of a(n) __.export quotavoluntary export restraintad valorem tarifftariff quota

Question at position 8 Countries might impose a(n) __ in response to the threat of an import quota or total ban on a product by an importing nation.embargoad valorem tariffcompound tariffvoluntary export restraint

What is a tariff?

What is the basic precondition of introducing voluntary export restraints as an instrument of trade policy? Select one – the most appropriate answer.

更多留学生实用工具

考试浏览器助手

风格化写作助手

论文查重助手

文献引用助手

课堂转译助手

课堂笔记助手

Quiz搜索助手

学校历年真题

智能刷题助手

智能匹配练习

希望你的学习变得更简单