(B. Franklin)

In the statement I have chosen, the author examines the essence of international trade and its role and significance for the development of the national economy. In our time, this question is more relevant than ever. Right now, integration processes in all spheres have become especially clearly traced, including globalization has also affected the economic subsystem. The scale of world trade has increased significantly, since no country can provide itself with all the necessary benefits.

American politician Benjamin Franklin spoke about international trade like this:"Trade has not yet ruined a single people."In other words, he believes that trade has mostly positive effects and believes that international trade is designed to promote the economic development of the national economy and the enrichment of the nation. I partially share the opinion of the author and also believe that competent international trade is able to develop and strengthen the economic position of a single state, and also contributes to the development of the world market. However, history knows cases when illiterate international exchange relations led, on the contrary, to a fall in the economic level of the country, a partial loss of independence, a decrease in the competitiveness of domestic producers, and so on.

Let's turn to the theoretical arguments. In modern social sciences, it is customary to define international trade as a sphere of international commodity-money relations, which is a set of foreign trade of all countries of the world. International trade is characterized by two counter flows: import and export. Import is the import of goods from abroad, and export is the opposite, their export abroad for the purpose of sale.

The scope of international trade is the world market, which is a set of interconnected and interacting with each other national markets of individual states participating in the international division of labor, international trade and other forms of economic relations.

In this context, it is impossible not to dwell in more detail on such a concept as the international division of labor. Modern social scientists and economists define it as the sustainable production of goods and services in individual countries in excess of the country's domestic needs, based on the international market. That is, it consists in focusing on the advantages of each country, climatic or territorial, and using them in the world economy.

There are two types of policies that a state can follow in the world market regarding international trade: the policy of "free trade" (free trade) and the policy of protectionism. "Free trade" means the free import and export of goods to and from the country, its active and unhindered participation in international trade, the openness of the market. Undoubtedly, such a policy has a lot of positive qualities: it strengthens the position of the state in the world market, provides the consumer with greater freedom of choice, and so on. However, if the priorities are wrong, free trade policies can hurt. For example, it can have a detrimental effect on the country's domestic market: imported producers may crowd out domestic ones, the country's economy may not be able to cope with the volumes of necessary exports, and so on.

In this case, countries can choose a policy of protectionism, which consists in a system of import restrictions, when highcustoms duties, the import of certain products is prohibited, other measures are used to prevent the competition of foreign products with local ones. The policy of protectionism encourages the development of domestic production that can replace imported goods.

In addition to theoretical arguments, actual examples can also be given. A striking example of the dangers hidden in the policy of "free trade" is the economic state of the world in the 40s. XIX century. Then the countries of Western Europe and the United States were forced to pursue a policy of "protective" protectionism, saving the economy of their countries and national industry from the more developed Great Britain, which already practiced a policy of "free trade".

However, the policy of "free trade" undoubtedly carries a lot of advantages. Yes, January 1st 1995 in order to liberalize international trade and regulation of trade and political relations of the member states, the World Trade Organization (WTO) was created, which Russia joined in 2012. WTO member countries have more advanced economic systems, are more listed on the world market, as they deliberately open their markets.

But still, the opponents of free trading bring not only economic, but also moral arguments in defense of their point of view. In this case, international trade does not ruin the peoples from the point of view of the economy of the country, but affects deeper processes, ruining the peoples, perhaps with more dangerous consequences. Such consequences include the phenomenon called “race to the bottom”, which consists in the progressive lifting of restrictions and lowering standards of state regulation as a result of interethnic or interregional competition. Tax cuts, social guarantees, trade restrictions and government regulation of business lead to an aggravation poverty . And, consequently, exacerbates the North-South problem. Yes, at the end 19th century , legislation onjoint-stock companiesliberalized rapidly in Europe. Various countries adopted increasingly liberal laws to keep local businesses competitive.

You can also give an example from personal experience. From the consumer's point of view, I can say that free international trade brings undeniable benefits. So, thanks to this phenomenon, a greater variety of goods is presented on the market, the production of some of them is simply impossible on the territory of our country. Thus, through international trade, a dialogue of cultures is also carried out. For example, it is unlikely that we would have a clear idea of ​​​​Mexican food if it could not be purchased at the nearest supermarket.

Thus, the integration of economies is a reality of the modern world. No country can afford to close. It is necessary to diversify the advantages and understand what can be offered to the world market. This will reduce risks and expand benefits internationally.

The American scientist and politician Benjamin Franklin wanted to emphasize the benefits that trade brings to the economic prosperity of society. I think we should agree with this.

• Thus, the Communist Party represents the interests of poor citizens and stands up for the expansion of social policy and the equalization of fortunes;
• The scale of world trade has increased significantly, since no country can provide itself with all the necessary benefits;
• After all, if a country has a sufficient amount of certain goods or minerals, then this is a profitable opportunity to sell them to another state at the most affordable price and earn money for the internal needs of the state;
• In ancient times, everything seemed;
• In ancient times, everything seemed:

Exchange as a form of distribution of the produced products of labor began to develop in ancient times. Over time, people realized the need to introduce an equivalent.

From this point on, you can actually talk about trade.

“Trade has not yet ruined a single nation” (B. Franklin).

Later they began to use pieces and ingots of precious metals, money. Today, trade is the most common form of exchange, in which the right of ownership for the benefit of a product or service passes from one to another through the mediation of money.

1. I think we should agree with this.
2. How often do politicians have to make this choice. A decrease in price will increase the quantity demanded for that good.
3. Developed trade is an indicator of successful and stable economic development of the country as a whole.
4. To avoid such a choice. Chuvashia has long wanted to enter the European market.

Trade can serve as a unifying factor in the economic and socio-political development of the country. Trade truly united Russia.

Economics Grade 11

Merchant caravans stretched along land roads and rivers. Carts with grain from the Dnieper region went to Novgorod; salt was brought from Volhynia; from north to south - furs, fish.

1. Features of the crime are the wrongfulness of the act, guilt, special social danger, severe punishment.
2. In my opinion, if relations are well developed in the country, the economic sphere of the country will also flourish. After that, the mother lost her mind, and the father began to adjust the death of the perpetrators.
3. Developed trade is an indicator of successful and stable economic development of the country as a whole. But still, the opponents of free trading bring not only economic, but also moral arguments in defense of their point of view.

Russian merchants brought leather, wax, linen for sails, silver and bone items to other countries. Fabrics, weapons, jewelry came from other countries.

Trade linked all Russian lands into a single economic complex and accelerated the formation of the Russian nation. Today, in the context of globalization, trade is increasingly becoming global.

• Trade is the most common form of exchange, in which the right of ownership of a good, a service, passes from one to another through money;
• And, therefore, exacerbates the North-South problem;
• In foreign countries, Russian merchants transported items made of silver and bone, wax, leather, and linen for sails;
• Carts with grain from the Dnieper region went to Novgorod; salt was brought from Volhynia to all lands; from north to south - furs, fish;
• Along land roads, along rivers, merchant caravans stretched;
• And other goods came from foreign countries - weapons, fabrics, jewelry, precious stones, wine, church utensils.

The market, as a sphere of interaction of money, goods, services, labor resources, is becoming the whole world. Developed trade is an indicator of successful and stable economic development of the country as a whole.

Trade has not yet ruined a single nation

I believe that our trade is one-sided. We mainly sell natural resources: It would be more profitable to sell not only hydrocarbons, but also finished goods, including high-tech ones. In this direction, and it is necessary to develop the economy.

• Of course, on the one hand, he deceived his citizens, this is unpleasant, but on the other hand, the war for Algeria could bring a lot of problems to France;
• And again, this was the right decision, although many were unhappy with it;
• Trade took place even when there were no coins;
• Fabrics, weapons, jewelry came from other countries.

So, I agree with the opinion of an eminent American politician on the role of trade. It is time for our politicians to realize this as well. The size of the archive with the presentation is 962 KB.

"Trade has not yet ruined a single people." (B. Franklin)
The author wanted to say that engaging in trading activities is useful for society, this can lead to its prosperity. I think we should agree with this. Trade has developed since the development of social relations. Some sell, others buy. Trade took place even when there were no coins. Animal skins, precious metals, etc. could serve as money. Trade -
this is the most common form of exchange in which the ownership of a good (goods, services) passes from one to another through money. Trade can serve as a unifying factor for a country and even the world. Take, for example, Ancient Russia. Trade truly united Russia. Merchant caravans stretched along land roads and rivers. Carts with grain from the Dnieper region went to Novgorod; salt was brought from Volhynia to all lands; from North to South
- fur, fish. Russian merchants brought leather, wax, linen for sails, silver and bone items to other countries. Foreign goods came from other countries: fabrics, weapons, precious stones, jewelry, church utensils, wine. Thus, thanks to trade, prosperity and development of states occurred.
I believe that well-developed relations in the country
- a sign of the developed economic life of the country. Therefore the president
Chuvashia N.V. Fedorov often says: In order to prove yourself well, you need to enter the European market. concept
“market” means the sphere of exchanging goods for money and money for goods, the interaction of producers and consumers on a regional, national and global scale. Chuvashia is already trying to enter the European market.
By organizing various exhibitions, we attract various investors who conclude contracts for the purchase of our national products. Thus, we get money, and they are goods. Their money goes to the production of a new product, and our product goes to develop their economy.
Therefore, I agree with the statement that trade has not yet ruined a single people.

"Don't be greedy
-

-
income". (M. Montaigne)

- that's not enough. A very striking example of this can be found in Gogol's "Dead Souls", where Plyushkin is just not enough. His chests are full of wealth, and he himself dresses and eats like a beggar. In modern life, everything is the same, to whom


-

- income". Income
- this is the totality of all financial resources received by a person necessary to pay for the material side of his life. Household spending is called consumption.
A rational consumer should be guided by the rational organization of his life, efficient production activities, optimization of consumption. If you are not a rational consumer, there may be a situation that expenses will exceed income. And here it depends not on the amount of wealth a person has, but on the ability to manage it. There have been many cases in history when wealthy nobles brought their fortune to bankruptcy, but there were many peasants who, thanks to their work, became prosperous. Or another example: Ford started his career with the first car. If he had spent the money received for him only for current needs, he would never have been able to establish a car company. The investment of the initial capital in the business became the basis of his wealth. Therefore, I agree with the statement of M. Montaigne.
"Competition
-
the only method of mutual coordination of our individual actions without coercion
or arbitrary interference by the authorities.” (F. Hayek)
Since this statement is given in the "economics" section, then competition should be understood as the economic rivalry of economic activity participants in the struggle to achieve better results. It seems to me that the definition of competition given by the author accurately defines its essence. Competition is a regulator of not only economic, but also political, cultural, and interpersonal relations. Competition performs the function of mutual coordination of our actions without interference from the authorities: people compete for better results, more profits, better living conditions. In the course of competition, they objectively change the objects around them, their relationships, adjust to each other, strive to keep up with others, that is, they carry out mutual coordination of actions. For example, in a market
- then the goods are presented in excess, i.e., the value of supply is greater than the value of demand. This is where the law of competition manifests itself: a manufacturer, by increasing efficiency, can reduce production costs, reduce the cost of a product, improve its quality and, ultimately, reduce the price of its product. This will "spur" other manufacturers to retaliate. A decrease in price will increase the quantity demanded for that good. Thus, competition can, without any state intervention, regulate supply and demand, coordinate the actions of various manufacturers. Other examples of competition that are not related to economics can be cited: the competition of musical groups, presidential elections, entrance exams, and so on. So the competition is
universal regulator of the whole life of society.
"All happy families are alike; every unhappy family is unhappy in
-
to his" L. Tolstoy.
The most important social family is the institution and basic unit of society
- a community of people based on a single family activity, marital ties and consanguinity. Of course, each of us has our own ideas about ideal families. L. Tolstoy also has his own position. his saying "all happy families are alike, every unhappy family is unhappy in
- to our own" means: we can easily name the signs of a happy family, because they are universal (in a good family there is harmony, mutual understanding, children are brought up and respect elders, etc.), but at the same time it is impossible to identify the causes of the misfortune of all the unhappy families, as the causes of unhappiness are always different.
But I cannot but agree with the opinion of L. Tolstoy. To argue my point of view, I want to name the main functions of the family: 1) socially
- status, 2) leisure 3) reproductive 4) education and socialization of children 5) households.
- economic
6) emotional. In a happy family, all these functions are performed: children are born (reproductive), who receive a good upbringing from their parents (social and parenting), and they all spend the weekend together, celebrate holidays (leisure), rejoice in the successes and empathize with the failures of loved ones (emotional .), while spouses and children do not forget to help each other with the housework (household.
- economical). In such a family, both children and parents are undoubtedly happy.
But imagine unhappy families. In one, for example, the wife does all the housework, and the husband does not help her. Hoz
- economic the function of the family is not performed by one of the spouses, and consequently, discontent grows, conflicts arise. The family may fall apart. In another
- emotions are not implemented
- psychological family function. How often can you hear that there is no mutual understanding in the family (a common situation: a father comes home late from work and hardly sees his children, does not know how they are doing, etc. Or the wife does not support her husband in a difficult situation) And how much films and programs dedicated to difficult teenagers that even their parents can not cope with! These are families where the function of raising and socializing children is not performed. And finally, there are families where not only what
- then one, but also two, three or more functions! For example, these are families of alcoholics, which any district police officer can tell about and, unfortunately, there are quite a lot of them now.
So, discussing this topical problem, I come to the conclusion: in happy families, all the functions of the family are realized, which is why they are similar, and in unhappy families
- different functions are not performed, therefore "every unhappy family is unhappy in
- to his own."

"
There are 2 peaceful forms of violence: law and decency" I. Goethe.
What is violence? Usually, when we talk about violence, we mean cruelty. But in Goethe's statement, the word violence has a different meaning: prohibition, restriction of freedom. So the meaning of this statement is that society can control the behavior of people in a peaceful way, using laws and public morality.
I cannot but agree with the German writer and philosopher Goethe. There is a social control mechanism in society
- a set of means that is used by society for its preservation and normal functioning. Social control can be exercised by politicians
- the legal system, public morality, as well as the professional system and the system of informal requirements. And all this
- peaceful forms of regulation of human behavior: they are carried out with the help of social sanctions, that is, rewards and punishments that contribute to the observance of social norms.
The following example can serve as an argument. Suppose a person wants to steal something
- either or commit murder.
However, no matter how strong his desire for delinquent behavior is, society forbids him to do this: in
- First, the law provides for punishment for the commission of an unlawful act, in
- secondly, public morality will most likely condemn him. Or a person wants to break the trees planted in the park, pick flowers, but he, knowing that society will apply formal (will bring to administrative responsibility) and informal (friends will stop communicating with him, colleagues will stop greeting him, etc.) n.) negative social sanctions, will not commit such an act.
So, completing the reasoning on this topical issue, I come to the conclusion that, although social sanctions are likened to violence (after all, they do not restrict human freedom), it is still a peaceful way of violence, since it is aimed at developing society and maintaining order in it .
And one more question. Given B. Shaw's statement "a healthy nation just does not notice its nationality, like a healthy person
- your spine
Will the following argument work: everyone knows how much grief Nazi Germany brought to the world when, in the forties of the 20th century, Hitler and his allies, propagandizing the ideas of nat. superiority, unleashed the Second World War. Is it possible to talk about the health of a nation if it carries out national violence against other ethnic groups
- suppresses and belittles them?
Obviously, the feeling of belonging to a nation gives rise to hatred and enmity towards other peoples, becoming the basis for conflicts and wars. Such a nation cannot be considered healthy.
And the conclusion: of course, patriotism should be inherent in people, but it is bad if it develops into nationalism and chauvinism.
It is necessary to strive for tolerance in relation to national cultures, customs and traditions of peoples, to get rid of prejudices about exclusively
"The human child at the moment of birth is not a man, but only a candidate for a man." (A. Pieron)
Human
- this is the highest level of living organisms on Earth, the subject of social
- historical activity and culture, in which the biological and social principles are closely interconnected. A newborn from a biological point of view
- a person, but from a social point of view
- only a candidate for a person. Therefore, I believe that A. Pieron is right.
The textbook of social science emphasizes the differences between the concepts of "individual" and "personality". Both terms characterize a person, but how? An individual is a specific person, as a holistic, unique representative of the human race with its unique psychophysiological traits (age, gender, temperament, level of abilities, health and appearance, etc.). Personality
- this is a human individual who is the subject of social activity, possessing a set of socially significant features, properties and qualities that he implements in public life. An individual becomes a person in the process of socialization, which includes education, training, communication with other people. Man at birth
is an individual, but not yet a person. Only communication with other people enables the child to learn to speak, think logically, acquire cultural skills. Having mastered the experience of mankind, having found his place in society, his recognition, he will become a man in the full sense of the word -
unique personality, individuality.
The well-known example of children can be cited as arguments.
-
"Mowgli". So, in India, a newborn girl spent several years in a pack of monkeys. When she's at 11
- In summer she came to people, she could not speak, walked on all fours, could not learn to eat with a spoon. She looked more like an animal than a person. On the other hand, there are cases when children born seriously ill, disabled, with the help of special development methods, through their own efforts, with the participation of their relatives, overcame their biological imperfection and became famous scientists, politicians, etc. Thus, the rights of A Pierron: looking at a newborn, we still do not know whether he will become a man with all his inherent qualities or will be a creature biologically similar to a man, but devoid of his social and cultural characteristics.
"Don't be greedy
-
already have wealth, not wasteful
-
income.” (M. Montaigne)
In my opinion, this statement is akin to a saying: "Not the rich one who has a lot of money, but the one who has fewer needs."
What are these statements about, what is their essence? Each person determines for himself whether he is rich or not, although sometimes his assessment is formed as a result of comparison with other people. A greedy person is always something
- that's not enough. A very striking example of this can be found in Gogol's "Dead Souls", where Plyushkin is not enough. His chests are full of wealth, and he himself dresses and eats like a beggar. In modern life, everything is the same, to whom
- then there is not enough money for a two-level apartment, and he considers himself poor, and who
- he considers himself rich, because he has bread on the table every day. However, there is another side to this. Wealth
-
it is not only the absence of greed, but also frugality, rationalism and pragmatism. Let's analyze the second half of the phrase
M. Montaigne "not to be wasteful
- income". Income
- this is the totality of all financial resources received by a person necessary to pay for the material side of his life. Household spending is called consumption. A rational consumer should be guided by the rational organization of his life, efficient production activities, optimization of consumption. If you are not a rational consumer, there may be a situation that expenses will exceed income. And here it depends not on the amount of wealth a person has, but on the ability to manage it. There have been many cases in history when wealthy nobles brought their fortune to bankruptcy, but there were many peasants who, thanks to their work, became prosperous. Or another example: Ford started his career with the first car. If he had spent the money received for him only for current needs, he would never have been able to establish a car company. The investment of the initial capital in the business became the basis of his wealth. Therefore, I agree with the statement of M. Montaigne.

There are thousands of articles on the Internet with quotes from successful people. But most people misunderstand them, which is why they do not achieve the desired level of financial well-being.

We have analyzed the most famous quotes so you can see their true meaning.

Anatoly Pack

Robert Allen: “How many millionaires do you know who built their fortune on interest from a deposit? That's what I'm talking about too"

Robert Allen is an American economist and professor. How this phrase is usually perceived: “It is impossible to get rich on deposits, deposits and investments.”

Benjamin Franklin: "Trade has not yet ruined a nation."

Benjamin Franklin is an American politician, diplomat, and writer. Usually they think like this: “The best business is trading. Trading has the lowest risks: you definitely won’t go broke if you just resell other people’s goods.”

Do you agree? How do you like this interpretation? It is most profitable to sell what you produce yourself. Indians sell tea, Britons sell wool, programmers sell code, chefs sell cupcakes.

Warren Buffett: “I'll tell you how to get rich on Wall Street: be careful when others are greedy. Be greedy when others are cautious."

Warren Buffett is President and CEO of Berkshire Hathaway. As poor people understand it: “If experts advise you to be careful, you should buy. Even on a financial pyramid, you can make a fortune, you just need to buy its shares as early as possible.

But not everything is so straightforward. Truly rich people interpret these words differently. Buffett talks about demand and advises against buying stocks at the peak of demand. Bitcoin is now at the peak of demand, so Buffett would not advise buying it.

Paul Samuelson: "Investing should be like watching paint dry or grass grow"

Paul Samuelson is an American economist and Nobel laureate in economics. How this phrase is usually perceived: "Investing is long, difficult, and brings little return, so only those who have extra millions can do it."

But rich people see it differently. Investments that promise quick and large profits are most likely dubious and high-risk. The goal of a novice investor is to save money rather than to make quick and risky profits.

Malcolm Forbes: "The biggest mistake people make in life is when they don't try to make a living doing what they love the most."

Malcolm Forbes is an American publisher, businessman, and politician. Usually people think what they mean is: “You just have to do what you like, sooner or later it will start to bring in big money.”

The rich are not simpletons. Their words often hide a double bottom. Learn to read between the lines and wealth will become your daily attribute!