In 500 words or more (no less), explain the difference between normative ethics and meta-ethics. You may use examples, but you will still need to include a full scholarly definition of each, with commentary. You may use any scholarly source other than a dictionary, to include online video lectures. You may use Wikipedia as a starting point, but be aware that Wikipedia is not a scholarly source and therefore can never be quoted in your paper or counted as 1 of your 5 bibliographic citations. You will need to include inline citations in your essay (last name, date, pg#) and must still cite any sources beyond the five required that you use to write your paper in the references section of your essay. If you include an inline citation, there must be a corresponding entry in the reference list or bibliography. You can find tools and examples of APA citation formats at the Purdue University Online Writing Lab. You are required to submit a separate annotated bibliography. 

Based on the information contained in Case C7-6: Interpretation of GAAP and Ethical Issues, could a LIFO liquidation profit create ethical issues? Defend your position.

( Please answer each question in 300 words )Buy American! Buy Spanish! British jobs for British workers! The ideology of economic nationalism seeks to implement trade policies that help to keep jobs and investment at home while ignoring the advantages of open international trade and investment. Economic nationalism was popular during the Great Depression of 1929–1933 when it served to protect domestic firms from international competition. However, this led to curtailing international business activity, making the global economic slowdown worse. Widely recognized as a myopic policy, economic nationalism nevertheless reemerged during the global financial crisis that originated in the United States in 2008, prompting many analysts to wonder whether the public has learned anything from international business history.Soon after the U.S. stock market crash of 1929, Willis Hawley and Reed Smoot, two Republicans in the U.S. Congress, sponsored a bill to raise import tariffs to the highest level in U.S. history. Given the high rate of U.S. unemployment at that time, the bill was passed in order to keep jobs at home. This resulted in retaliation from other nations as they raised tariffs on exports from the United States and other countries. The net result was a ruinous fall in global trade and a worldwide depression.In late 2008 and early 2009, when the United States faced the worst recession since the Great Depression, the call for a new round of trade barriers was being debated. However, this time the focus was upon inserting nontariff barriers on items in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, which was meant to give the floundering U.S. economy a boost. This legislation, commonly known as the “stimulus package,” included a “Buy American” provision that restricted government spending to U.S. companies. As a result, public works such as infrastructure projects were required to use commodities, such as iron and steel, that was domestically sourced, despite that these products cost more than imports from countries such as China. Similarly, the development and delivery of computerized medical records would be restricted to domestic IT firms, even if such services could be sourced at a much lower cost from India.Some experts argued that such protectionism may violate international trade rules, and U.S. exporters feared retaliation against their goods and services. Canada, in fact, soon threatened retaliation. Meanwhile, other countries moved in similar directions. The British prime minister talked of “British jobs for British workers,” the French president urged French car companies to invest at home rather than elsewhere in the European Union, the government of Spain launched a “Buy Spanish” campaign. It may not be Smoot-Hawley, but the global implications could be the same.1)Is economic nationalism justified?2)Is the Smoot-Hawley plan better or worse than “Buy American”? “Buy Spanish”? Or “British jobs for British workers”? Explain fully.