Module 4 Written Assignment
Should any constraint be put on a business if they decide to export capital for production abroad?
A business should be able to export capital for production abroad without any limitations or interference from any government or public organization. A business is in business to make money for its shareholders or stakeholders. If it is more profitable for a business to export capital for production abroad it is completely within their right to do so. Any government or public interference is a violation of a company’s liberties to do what they wish with their justly owned property.
Yes, moving capital overseas is likely going to negatively impact the economy from people losing their jobs, businesses that supply the other business with goods and services will be impacted, the government will lose taxes and many other impacts. But, it is completely within their right to export capital overseas if it benefits their company. It may be their only option to continue being in business.
Should any constraint be put on a business if they decide to export commodities which have been banned from sale in the United States?
I see no reason why a business should not be able to export a commodity which has been banned in the United States. Just because our rules and regulations have made something illegal or unlawful to sell doesn’t mean a company should not be able to sell it someone who could use it or wants it. A utilitarian view of this situation is that selling the banned items gives more pleasure to the people directly affected by it than displeasure or pain to anyone else.
Perhaps the banned item in question is not available any other way than being imported from the United States. Let’s say the item in question is a drug that has been banned in the US but could be useful in other countries. It benefits the U.S. company because they sell an item they spent money to produce and therefore they can stay in business and it benefits people in the other country because it
A business should be able to export capital for production abroad without any limitations or interference from any government or public organization. A business is in business to make money for its shareholders or stakeholders. If it is more profitable for a business to export capital for production abroad it is completely within their right to do so. Any government or public interference is a violation of a company’s liberties to do what they wish with their justly owned property.
Yes, moving capital overseas is likely going to negatively impact the economy from people losing their jobs, businesses that supply the other business with goods and services will be impacted, the government will lose taxes and many other impacts. But, it is completely within their right to export capital overseas if it benefits their company. It may be their only option to continue being in business.
Should any constraint be put on a business if they decide to export commodities which have been banned from sale in the United States?
I see no reason why a business should not be able to export a commodity which has been banned in the United States. Just because our rules and regulations have made something illegal or unlawful to sell doesn’t mean a company should not be able to sell it someone who could use it or wants it. A utilitarian view of this situation is that selling the banned items gives more pleasure to the people directly affected by it than displeasure or pain to anyone else.
Perhaps the banned item in question is not available any other way than being imported from the United States. Let’s say the item in question is a drug that has been banned in the US but could be useful in other countries. It benefits the U.S. company because they sell an item they spent money to produce and therefore they can stay in business and it benefits people in the other country because it