Let me give you some thoughts about each term and perhaps we can find the differences.
1a. Strategic sale - We argue that in today's new world business order, where customers reign supreme, increasingly demanding industrial, commercial and consumer sales situations require a better response than that offered by the old-line sales force. More to the point, sales management, which is primarily responsible for what happens when the company meets its prospects and customers, must be strategic. The process of moving the sales targets from the buying office to the boardroom is where you find the greatest concentration of strategic sales. It moves from selling one product at a time to selling the capabilities of the entire company. It changes the alignment from that of vendor to that of trading partner. It makes sales decisions of much higher impact on both companies.
1b- Minority sale - this term is unfamiliar with me, however minority seems to imply the lesser portion, so perhaps this refers to selling in smaller lots. It might also connote selling your minority portion of a company, or that the seller is a minority, or that the product being sold is just a small portion of the selling companies product line or capabilities.
If you compare the two, it would appear that you could generalize that strategic sales involves the entire company while minority sale only refers to a small part of the company's capability. I could be off target on this, because I don't see how the two terms measure the same thing, and therefore don't seem to be really linked well.
2a. - Bilateral trade - This is defined as the trade between two countries; that is, the value or quantity of one country's exports to the other, or the sum of exports and imports between them. It also can be a trade between two parties.
2b. - Multilateral means "Among a large number of countries.", so multilateral trade would be trade between many or all countries.
The difference here is much clearer and refers to trade agreements between two countries as opposed to general trade agreements with all countries. An example might be steel from Japan coming into the US. Japan (the country) subsidizes this so the companies can export to the US for less than it can be manufactured in the US. That means that unless the US imposes trade restrictions on imported steel from Japan, the country would be flooded with Japanese steel and the US firms would go out of business and all the employees would lose their jobs. Since the role of the government is to help level the playing field, the US imposes either quantity or other liminations to insure that does not happen. On the other hand, assume that countries from all over the world export widgets to the US and there is no threat to US companies by this, then the US would not impose trade restrictions.
3a. - Tariff barriers - a tariff is a tax on trade, usually an import tariff but sometimes used to denote an export tax. So a tariff barrier would be the way a country levels the playing field (see 2b above). For instance, if the US wanted fewer pine tree log imports from Canada, you would charge so much money per linear foot or log or other measure or you could set up a non-tariff barrier.
3b. - Non-tariff barriers - Any policy that interferes with exports or imports other than a simple tariff, prominently including quotas and VERs. That means that you put sanctions on the imports into the US by something other than a tax. These include Advance deposit requirements
Anti-dumping
Border tax adjustments
Countertrade
Countervailing duties
Customs procedures
Domestic content requirements
Embargos
Exchange controls
Government procurement practices
Import licensing
Preferential trading arrangements
Prohibitions
Quotas
Rules of origin
Special entry procedures
Standards
State trading
Subsidies
Tariff quotas
Technical barriers
Variable levies
Voluntary export restraints
Voluntary restraint agreements
Other nontariff measures:
Export limitations
Export requirements
Export subsidies
Voluntary import expansions
So the difference between the two is one taxes the import without regard for quantity of import while the other restricts trade for a lot of different reasons and is used to limit the amount or type of imports. Dumping, for instance, is an export price that is "unfairly low," defined as either below the home market price (normal value) (hence price discrimination) or below cost. With the rare exception of successful predatory dumping, dumping is economically beneficial to the importing country as a whole (though harmful to competing producers) and often represents normal business practice.
I guess the gist of the question is aimed at acknowledging that you can restrict trade by taxing or by using the law.
Good luck
2007-01-15 04:52:30
·
answer #1
·
answered by The Answer Man 5
·
0⤊
0⤋
I'm sorry I can't be much help but googling normally does the trick!
Or look in whatever class is assigning this homework's textbook.
2007-01-15 04:21:53
·
answer #2
·
answered by ELIZABETH WILLIAMS 1
·
0⤊
1⤋