Question

question 39
if the united states threatens to impose a tariff on colombian coffee if colombia does not remove agricultural subsidies, the united states will be

better off regardless of how colombia responds

worse off regardless of how colombia responds

worse off if colombia doesnt remove the subsidies in response to the threat

better off if colombia removes the subsidies, and will be no worse off if it doesnt

Explanation:

This question is about international trade and strategic interactions. The US threatens a tariff on Colombian coffee to get Colombia to remove agricultural subsidies. If Colombia removes subsidies, the US benefits (e.g., fairer trade, maybe lower coffee prices or better market access). If Colombia doesn't, the US can impose the tariff or not—if it imposes, there might be retaliation or domestic costs, but if it doesn't, it's no worse off than before the threat. So the US is better off if Colombia complies and no worse off if not. The other options are wrong: "better off regardless" is too absolute, "worse off regardless" is wrong, and "worse off if no removal" ignores that the US can choose not to impose (or the threat's cost is manageable).

Answer:

D. better off if Colombia removes the subsidies, and will be no worse off if it doesn't