Answer:
Explanation:
find the attached document below
Answer:
a) If bribes cost $1,000 each, how much will a housing inspector make each year in bribes?
So, if the corrupt inspector approves two newly built structures each week, ti means that he is bribed twice per week. There are 52 weeks in a year, so he gets a total of 104 bribes (52 x 2). If each bribe costs $1,000, then he makes a total of: $1,000 x 104 = $104,000 in bribes per year.
c) Corrupt officials may have an incentive to reduce the provision of government services to help line their own pockets.
This statement is true. Corrupt officials will want to have private companies they can obtain bribes from provide government services. It increases the probability of them making money from bribes.
d) What if reducing the number of inspectors from 20 to 10 only increased the equilibrium bribe from $1,000 to $1,500?
Reducing the number of inspectors in hafl means that each inspector now gets twice the bribes. Because the equilibrium price did not double as did the quantity of bribes, each inspector will make less money than expected, but they will still the incentive to collect all the four bribes per week.
Answer:
The correct answer is B. the Credit Cardholders' Bill of Rights.
Explanation:
Basically, the new rule is intended to protect consumers from an arbitrary increase in interest rates, fees, and other finance charges, and prohibits banks from raising interest based on the customer's past due payment history with another banking institution. In addition, entities must allow customers to pay their bills online or by phone, without charging an additional fee, and must notify 45 days in advance of any change in interest rates so that the customer has enough time to review the new terms.
Answer: Higher; Comparative advantage
Explanation:
A country or a firm has a comparative advantage in producing a commodity if the opportunity cost of producing that commodity in terms of other commodities is lower than the other country or firm.
Opportunity cost is the benefit that is foregone for an individual by choosing one alternative over other alternatives available to him.
If the opportunity cost is lower for an individual then this will benefit him whereas if the opportunity cost is higher then this will not benefit the individuals.
Therefore,
United states's Opportunity cost of producing a pair of shoes = 
= 5 apples have to be foregone for producing a pair of shoes
Canada's Opportunity cost of producing a pair of shoes = 
= 2 apples have to be foregone for producing a pair of shoes
Hence, Canada has a comparative advantage in producing pairs of shoes because Canada's opportunity cost of producing a pair of shoes is lower than United states opportunity cost.
