Final answer:
The benefits stated in the statement for counter-purchase are incorrect because it does not typically involve upfront cash payments and may take longer than a year to sell exchanged goods. Buyers might pay more than the equilibrium price in the goods market due to perceived added value or urgency. The barter system is not conducive to future contracts or large-scale economic transactions.
Step-by-step explanation:
The statement in question is false because, in a commercial practice known as counterpurchase, the seller does not receive an immediate cash payment. Instead, the seller agrees to accept a portion of the payment in the form of goods or services from the buying country. The timeframe for the seller to sell these received goods can extend beyond just one year, contrary to what the question statement suggests. Additionally, there are inherent risks associated with the liquidity and marketability of the goods received in a counterpurchase agreement.
In the context of the goods market and equilibrium price, buyers may be willing to pay more than the equilibrium price in certain scenarios. For example, buyers may perceive added value in a product due to branding, quality, or scarcity, or they may face urgent needs that compel them to make purchases above the equilibrium price. Thus, the claim that no buyer would be willing to pay more than the equilibrium price is false.
The barter system poses challenges because it relies on a direct exchange of goods and services, which can be impractical for perishable goods and for economies aiming to engage in complex or future contractual transactions. For instance, a farmer cannot easily barter perishable strawberries in six months for a durable good like a tractor. The barter system also limits economic growth and expansion since it isn't conducive to larger scale and more intricate economic activities.