Professional Documents
Culture Documents
https://testbankfan.com/download/international-trade-3rd-edition-feenstra-test-bank/
1 Which of the following is NOT a reason why countries trade goods with
one another?
differences in technology used in different countries
differences in countries' total amount of resources
the proximity of countries to one another
differences in countries' languages and cultures
labor availability
similar tastes and preferences
proximity
shared membership in a freetrade area
labor.
capital.
natural resources.
labor, capital, and natural resources.
labor
capital
natural resources
government
offshoring.
resource abundance.
absolute advantage.
comparative advantage.
14 Ricardo's theory of trade discredited the idea that inflows of gold or silver
as a result of exporting helped a nation, while outflows of gold or silver
as a result of importing hurt a nation; that was known as:
export preference.
mercantilism.
monetary economics.
pricespecieflow mechanism.
16 According to Ricardo:
all countries can gain from trade if they export goods for which they
have an absolute advantage.
one country can gain from trade only at the expense of another
country.
all countries can gain from trade if they export goods for which they
have a comparative advantage.
all countries lose from international trade.
17 According to the Ricardian principle of comparative advantage,
international trade increases a nation's total output because:
the nation's resources are used where they are most productive.
the output of the nation's trading partner declines.
the nation can produce to the exterior of its production possibilities
frontier.
the nation is able to increase its consumption.
exporting goods will leave fewer goods for the local economy.
importing goods is beneficial for the economy.
any kind of trade is a bad trade.
exports are good and imports are bad.
20 Ricardo's theory showed that if nations are allowed to trade freely, the
result will be that:
all trading nations benefit by trade.
the manufacturing sector benefits but the consumers lose out.
workers benefit but the government loses tax revenue.
the gains from trade offset the losses from trade exactly.
24 The Ricardian model assumes that the marginal product of labor is:
increasing.
decreasing.
constant.
zero.
CHEIROPTERA, OR HAND-WINGED
ANIMALS.
The fox monkey or flying lemur (Galeopithecus volans) diffuses a
rank disagreeable odour, yet the flesh is eaten by the natives of the
islands of the Indian Archipelago.
The Dutch, when in the island of Mauritius are said to have been
fond of the flesh of bats, preferring it to the finest game, but I have
never heard the opinion corroborated there by others. The Indians of
Malabar and other parts of the East Indies, are said to eat the flesh
of bats.
The flesh of most bats is eaten in the Eastern Archipelago, and by
some esteemed, being compared to that of hare or partridge in
flavour. The flesh of the largest and most common, the black-bellied
roussette (Pteropus edulis, Geoff.), has a musky odour, but is
esteemed by the natives. They catch them in bags at the end of a
pole.
Fancy a great frightful animal like a weasel, with wings two feet in
length, being served up at table. Still they must be palatable, since
one species has thus been named by naturalists, ‘the eatable’ bat.
The flesh is stated to be white, delicate, and remarkably tender, and
is regarded by the inhabitants of Timor as a dainty. The body is ten
inches long, covered with close and shining black hair, and the
extended wings are about four feet.
CARNIVORA.
Carnivorous animals,—the terrible wild hunters of the forests and
deserts,—are themselves preyed upon by man.
The low Arabs do not object to the flesh of the hyena, although the
smell of the carcase is so rank and offensive, that even dogs leave it
with disgust, yet their own voracious kindred obligingly gobble them
up.
Even that pestilential animal the pole-cat, or skunk, falls a prey to the
voracity of hungry men. When care is taken not to soil the carcase
with any of the strong smelling fluid exuded by the animal, the meat
is considered by the natives of North America to be excellent food.
They eat foxes in Italy, where they are sold dear, and thought fit for
the table of a cardinal. Mr. Kennedy, a recent voyager to the arctic
regions, speaks of the delicacy of a fox pie, which was pronounced
by competent authorities in his mess to be equal to rabbit; but then
he honestly admits, that there were others to whom it suggested
uncomfortable reminiscences of dead cats, and who generally
preferred the opposite side of the table, when the dish made its
appearance. This repugnance is even shared by the brute creation,
for although Esquimaux dogs may kill a fox, they will not eat him.
This is the more extraordinary, as they are the most voracious and
dirty-feeding animals known; nothing they can possibly get at being
safe. Buffalo robes, seal skins, their own harness, even boots,
shoes, clothes, and dish cloths are sure to be destroyed.
The prairie wolf is eaten by the Indians of North America. The flesh
of the sloth is devoured with great avidity by the natives of
Demerara; and that of the lion by the Hottentots, while a tribe of
Arabs between Tunis and Algeria, according to Blumenbach, live
almost entirely upon its flesh.
The natives of the Malay Peninsula eat the flesh of the tiger,
believing it to be a sovereign specific for all diseases, besides
imparting to him who partakes of it the courage and sagacity of the
animal.
Some people have ventured to eat the cujuacura or American
panther, and say it is very delicate food; and the flesh of the wild cat
of Louisiana is said to be good to eat.
The flesh of the cougar or puma (Felis concolor), a fierce
carnivorous animal, is eaten in Central America, and is said to be
agreeable food. The injunction of St. Paul, ‘to eat what is set before
us, and ask no questions for conscience sake,’ would hardly be a
safe maxim in Central America, at an entertainment given ‘under the
greenwood tree’ by the ‘Ancient Foresters’ of Honduras. The sylvan
dainties would not be composed of precisely the same materials as a
petit diné at the Trois Frères, or the Café de Paris.
Mr. Darwin, in his Journal of a Naturalist, tells us that ‘once at
supper, from something which was said, I was suddenly struck with
horror at thinking I was eating one of the favourite dishes of the
country, namely, a half formed calf, long before its proper time of
birth. It turned out to be puma; the meat is very white, and
remarkably like veal in taste. Dr. Shaw was laughed at for stating
that the flesh of the lion is in great esteem, having no small affinity
with veal, both in colour, taste, and flavour. Such certainly is the case
with the puma. The Gauchos differ in their opinion, whether the
jaguar is good eating, but are unanimous in saying that cat is
excellent.’
Mr. Wallace, when travelling up the Amazon, writes—‘Several
jaguars were killed, as Mr. C— pays about 8s. each for their skins.
One day we had some steaks at the table, and found the meat very
white and without any bad taste. It appears evident to me that the
common idea of the food of an animal determining the quality of its
meat, is quite erroneous. Domestic poultry and pigs are the most
unclean animals in their food, yet their flesh is most highly esteemed,
while rats and squirrels, which eat only vegetable food, are in
general disrepute. Carnivorous fish are not less delicate eating than
herbivorous ones, and there appears no reason why some
carnivorous animals should not furnish wholesome and palatable
food.’
Bears’ paws were long reckoned a great delicacy in Germany, for
some authors tell us, that after being salted and smoked, they were
reserved for the tables of princes. In North America, bears’ flesh was
formerly considered equal to pork, the meat having a flavour
between beef and pork; and the young cubs were accounted the
finest eating in the world. Dr. Brooke, in his Natural History, adds
—‘Most of the planters prefer bears’ flesh to beef, veal, pork, and
mutton. The fat is as white as snow, and extremely sweet and
wholesome, for if a man drinks a quart of it at a time, when melted, it
will never rise on his stomach! It is of very great use for the frying of
fish and other things, and is greatly preferred to butter.’
Tastes have naturally altered since this was written, nearly a century
ago, and it would be somewhat difficult to carry on the sport of bear
hunting on the extensive scale then practised, when we are told 500
bears were killed in two of the counties in Virginia in one winter.
The Indians seem to have shared largely in the sport and spoils of
the chase, for at their subsequent feast, the largest bear was served
up as the first course, and they ‘roasted him whole, entrails, skin and
all, in the same manner as they would barbecue a hog.’
As the paws of the bear were held to be the most delicious morsels
about him, so the head was thought to be the worst, and always
thrown away; but the tongue and hams are still in repute.
The white bear is eaten by the Esquimaux and the Danes of
Greenland; and when young, and cooked after the manner of beef
steaks, is by no means to be despised, although rather insipid; the
fat, however, ought to be avoided, as unpleasant to the palate.
The flesh of the badger (Taxus vulgaris, Desm.) is said to be good
eating, and to taste like that of a boar. The omnivorous and thrifty
Chinese eat it, as indeed they do that of the flesh of most animals,
and consider its hams a very great dainty.
Many nations consider the flesh of the dog excellent. The Greeks ate
it; and Hippocrates was convinced that it was a light and wholesome
food. The common people of Rome also ate it. The Turks and some
of the Asiatic citizens would thank any one who would rid the
thoroughfares of the tribes of dogs which infest the streets and
courts; and there is a reward given for their slaughter. Fine feasts
might be made of them by those who liked them, while the skins
would come in for dog-skin gloves. Many of the South Sea islanders
fatten dogs for eating, but these live wholly on vegetable food.
The domestic dog of China is uniformly one variety, about the size of
a moderate spaniel, of a pale yellow, and occasionally a black colour,
with coarse bristly hair on the back, sharp upright ears, and peaked
head, not unlike a fox’s, with a tail curled over the rump.
In China, the dog is fattened for the table, and the flesh of dogs is as
much liked by them as mutton is by us; being exposed for sale by
their butchers, and in their cook-shops.
At Canton, the hind quarters of dogs are seen hanging up in the
most prominent parts of the shops exposed for sale. They are
considered by the Chinese as a most dainty food, and are consumed
by both rich and poor.
The breeds common in that country are apparently peculiar to itself,
and they are objects of more attention to their owners than
elsewhere in Asia. The Celestials, perhaps, having an eye to their
tender haunches, which bad treatment would toughen and spoil.[5]
The Africans of Zanzibar hold a stew of puppies, as amongst us in
the days of Charles the Second, as a dish fit for a monarch.
The Australian native dog or dingo, in aspect and colour resembling
a fox, is hunted down by the colonists owing to its depredations
among the flocks. The flesh even of this animal is eaten by the
blacks. The aborigines are often driven for subsistence to the most
wretched food, as snakes and other reptiles, grubs, lizards, and the
larvæ of the white ant. When they do obtain better food, they prepare
it with more care than might be expected. In cooking fish, they wrap
it in soft bark and place it in hot ashes. By this process an acid from
the bark is communicated to the fish, which gives it a most agreeable
flavour.
A traveller in the Sandwich Islands, relating his experience, says,
—‘Near every place at table was a fine young dog, the flesh of which
was declared to be excellent by all who partook of it. To my palate its
taste was what I can imagine would result from mingling the flavour
of pig and lamb; and I did not hesitate to make my dinner of it, in
spite of some qualms at the first mouthful. I must confess, when I
reflected that the puppy now trussed up before us, might have been
the affectionate and frolicsome companion of some Hawaiian fair—
they all have pet pigs or puppies—I felt as if dog-eating were only a
low grade of cannibalism. What eat poor Ponto?—
‘However, the edible dog is not one of your common curs, but a
dainty animal, fed exclusively on vegetables, chiefly taro (a root), in
the form of poë (dough), and at the age of two years is considered a
dish wherewith to regale royalty. Indeed, the Sandwich Island
monarch, I suspect, would be always well satisfied to see it before
him, in spite of the assertion of Dr. Kidd, that ‘it is worthy of
consideration that the flesh of those animals, of whose living
services we stand hourly in need, as the horse and the dog, are so
unpalatable, that we are not tempted to eat them unless in cases of
dreadful necessity.’ The doctor probably never assisted at a native
luaü or feast, or associated with the trappers upon the prairies of the
Far West.’[6]
Mr. John Dunn, in his History of the Oregon Territory, tells a story of
a Canadian cook, who, wishing to do honour to a dear and respected
friend, whom he had been dining with on board his ship, studied long
what he could get good enough to set before him, and at last
bethought him of dog, which is, or was, a favourite dish among
Canadian voyageurs or boatmen.
At the banquet the old boatswain ate heartily of it, as did the cook.
After he had done, the cook enquired how he had enjoyed his dinner.
He said it was beautiful. He then asked him whether he knew what
he had been dining on? He said he supposed from a goat.
‘Yes,’ says the cook, ‘you have been eating from a goat with von
long tail, that don’t like grass or heather.’
‘How is that?’ inquired the boatswain.
‘Vy you see,’ replied the cook, ‘it was my best dog you have dined
from.’
The old boatswain stormed and swore; and then ran as fast as
possible to the vessel to get a little rum for his stomach. He vowed
that he never again wished to dine with a Canadian cook, or eat pet
dogs.
Brooke, in his Natural History of Quadrupeds, tells us, that ‘in the
southern coast of Africa, there are dogs that neither bark nor bite like
ours, and they are of all kinds of colours. Their flesh is eaten by the
negroes, who are very fond of all sorts of dogs’ flesh, and will give
one of their country cows for a large mastiff. I do not know what part
of Africa this refers to.
In old medical works we are told, that the flesh of a fox, either boiled
or roasted, was said to be good for consumption; but I do not think it
is often prescribed or used for that purpose now.