1. In terms of what happened between the united states and Brail, “in 2002, Brazil filed a lawsuit against the United States in the WTO Dispute Settlement System saying that the subsidies the United States provided to US producers violated WTO trade agreements and gave US farmers an unfair advantage” (Agricultural Policy and Trade Liberalization). The WTO ruled in favor of Brazil’s claim. In addition, “the WTO then gave Brazil permission to enact punitive measures against the United States, [ultimately giving Brazilians] the right to impose tariffs and lift patent protections on US goods” (Agricultural Policy and Trade Liberalization). The United States saw the negative outcomes the punitive measure could’ve resulted in, especially in terms
…show more content…
With immigration, there a great deal of costs that come with it, but that isn’t to say benefits of immigration are absent from the equation. For costs, immigration can foster crime, threaten the values and cultures of Americans, increase burdens of public programs, and harm the working ability of Americans, thus undermining their efforts. On the flip side, immigration offers a plethora of benefits such as creating levels of diversity that might be otherwise absent, add and increase the generated revenue of the public budget, and fill “holes” in the economy by providing highly valued skills. In terms of the cost immigration has on Americans, I see the more and more immigrants flooding in as a chance for more terrorists, drug dealers, and other such criminals to enter the country. Additionally, immigrants of the poorer persuasion consume a greater amount of government provided resources, be it health care or education, all while not paying the higher, more demanding tax rate that goes along with it. On the more positive side of things, when more and more immigrants come to America, the overall image of America is seen as a country with open arms for any person; creating a more positive international image. Additionally, adding groups of cheap labor to any business increases its flexibility, be it in the forms of cheaper prices for products, better and higher quality for said products, and all around higher profits for all. I wholeheartedly agree with the Legal …show more content…
The Democratic Peace Theory simply states that “one democracy shall not go to or engage in war or other such acts with another democracy”. For its strengths, the Democratic Peace Theory gives the people the “power” to decide whether or not to go to war, meaning that leaders can’t whimsically decide to engage in war with another country. Additionally, the Theory allows for democracies to share their beliefs and values with other democracies. And finally, the Theory show that democracies, when compared to non-democracies, have far stronger infrastructures, and as a result, tend not to seek out war and fighting, as a loss of said infrastructures to combat is a possibility. In contrast the aforementioned strengths, the Democratic Peace Theory has its own weaknesses that sometimes hold it down. For starters, the idea and concept of war is very rare and seldom seen in this world, so such preparations for war may be deemed vain in this life time. Second, democracy as an entity is rather rarely seen, and in the same since new to this world, as its birth predates only a few decades, overall meaning that the notion of saying “two democracies shall never go two war with one another” is a tad hasty to say. Lastly, there have been some number of exceptions and events that disagree with the notions presented in the Theory, mainly noted by cases of two democracies in fact going to war and fighting one another. We see that the Democratic Peace Theory has more of a home amongst
With immigration, there a great deal of costs that come with it, but that isn’t to say benefits of immigration are absent from the equation. For costs, immigration can foster crime, threaten the values and cultures of Americans, increase burdens of public programs, and harm the working ability of Americans, thus undermining their efforts. On the flip side, immigration offers a plethora of benefits such as creating levels of diversity that might be otherwise absent, add and increase the generated revenue of the public budget, and fill “holes” in the economy by providing highly valued skills. In terms of the cost immigration has on Americans, I see the more and more immigrants flooding in as a chance for more terrorists, drug dealers, and other such criminals to enter the country. Additionally, immigrants of the poorer persuasion consume a greater amount of government provided resources, be it health care or education, all while not paying the higher, more demanding tax rate that goes along with it. On the more positive side of things, when more and more immigrants come to America, the overall image of America is seen as a country with open arms for any person; creating a more positive international image. Additionally, adding groups of cheap labor to any business increases its flexibility, be it in the forms of cheaper prices for products, better and higher quality for said products, and all around higher profits for all. I wholeheartedly agree with the Legal …show more content…
The Democratic Peace Theory simply states that “one democracy shall not go to or engage in war or other such acts with another democracy”. For its strengths, the Democratic Peace Theory gives the people the “power” to decide whether or not to go to war, meaning that leaders can’t whimsically decide to engage in war with another country. Additionally, the Theory allows for democracies to share their beliefs and values with other democracies. And finally, the Theory show that democracies, when compared to non-democracies, have far stronger infrastructures, and as a result, tend not to seek out war and fighting, as a loss of said infrastructures to combat is a possibility. In contrast the aforementioned strengths, the Democratic Peace Theory has its own weaknesses that sometimes hold it down. For starters, the idea and concept of war is very rare and seldom seen in this world, so such preparations for war may be deemed vain in this life time. Second, democracy as an entity is rather rarely seen, and in the same since new to this world, as its birth predates only a few decades, overall meaning that the notion of saying “two democracies shall never go two war with one another” is a tad hasty to say. Lastly, there have been some number of exceptions and events that disagree with the notions presented in the Theory, mainly noted by cases of two democracies in fact going to war and fighting one another. We see that the Democratic Peace Theory has more of a home amongst