Question

In the national interest argument. It is sometimes argued that nation should not depend too heavily on other countries for supplies of certain key products. This argument has been made for commodities that are important to the U.S. economy as a whole, like oil. Discuss some arguments economists may raise against this.

Answer 1

The argument against it's the use of resources on the grounds of the specialty of employees and resource abundance. It usually means that a country should produce those goods, in the country has the lowest opportunity cost and trade for the goods. It will make the most of the Consumption that can't occur when the federal interest argument is implemented as mentioned in the problem statement. The next argument is the country's competitive advantage that states that a country should produce what it has a competitive advantage concerning resources infrastructure, employees, and states of the marketplace in the country. It will assist the state produce that could provide a competitive advantage, and the remaining goods will be erased. The next argument is that the variable abundance. The country should just produce what it's in abundance. It'll reduce costs and produce a competitive advantage. Other goods will be erased.
So these arguments are against the national interest argument since it can cut the output signal, raise the price, and create the procedure to be non-competitive.