Q1: The theory of comparative advantage suggests that activities should take place in the countries that can perform them most efficiently, given that different countries are endowed with different factors of production. If there are no barriers or costs to trade, then it is likely that many industries will be based out of the countries that provide the best set of factor endowments. Given location economies, a company can develop a global web of value-creation activities to take advantage of differing factor endowments in differing locations. For firms already located in the countries with the most favorable factor endowments for their industry, however, there may not be a need to expand internationally at a certain point in time. As factor endowments evolve, the firm may want to disperse its value-creating activities to those markets that offer comparative advantages. If the firm is in a competitive market, it will benefit from international expansion that includes its value-creating activities because of the cost position and product differentiation opportunities such expansion can confer. A firm may be able to survive in a local market without international expansion, as long as the local market is not targeted by competitors who have taken advantage of the economies offered by dispersing their value-creation activities internationally. An example is an inefficient, high-priced locally-owned supermarket that has not yet faced the entry of Wal-Mart in its market.

Q2： Were North America to adopt a common currency, it would become increasingly attractive for foreign investment and would increase trade and investment among the three countries.
The exchange rates between Canada and the U.S. have been relatively stable for a long time, but that is not the case with Mexico, as the text explains. Trade and investment flows between the U.S. and