Answer:
affect nominal but not real variables. This view that money is ultimately neutral is consistent with classical theory.
Explanation:
This idea is held by classical economists (not by most economists) since they believe in the quantitative theory of money:
MV = PQ
- M = quantity of money
- V = velocity of money
- P = price level
- Q = quantity of goods
Classical theory was abandoned 90 years ago (according to classical theory, recessions were not possible and couldn't exist, but then the Great Depression came and the impossible became true). Neo-classical or monetarists appeared in the 1960s, and lately, neo-neo-classical appeared with George W. Bush. The problem with the quantitative theory is that it needs the following things to be true in order to hold, and empirical evidence over the last 90 years showed that none of them are true:
- the velocity of money has to be constant (AND IT IS NOT CONSTANT)
- real output is independent on money supply (NOT TRUE)
- causation goes from money to prices (MODERN ECONOMISTS BELIEVE IT IS THE OTHER WAY)
Answer:
Georgeland has an absolute but not a comparative advantage in producing clothing.
Explanation:
Absolute advantage is defined as the ability of a firm to produce higher amounts of a product as a result of use of the same resources with other competitors. It is usually bad a result of more efficient production process.
Comparative advantage is the ability of a firm to produce goods at a lower opportunity cost. Therefore they are able to sell at lower price compared to competitors.
Georgeland can produce 18 units of clothe per year while Alland can produce 16 units per year, so Georgeland has absolute advantage.
In producing clothes Georgeland has opportunity cost of 36 units of food which is higher than that of Alland which is 32 units of food. So Georgeland does not have comparative advantage in producing clothes.
The answer to this question is <span> B) the classical economists.
Classical economist based their assumptions on the view that market will always find a way to regulate itself without any external intervention.
In reality, many private establishments often exert their power to control a specific resource in the market in order to rake in more profit (such as what monopolist do)</span>
In a franchise, the franchisor allows the franchisee to trade under its name and see its products for a fee The franchisee pays an original fee to franchisor and a
percentage of its profit for the privilege.So,since, Dunkin' Doughnuts is sharing its' brand name and image with David Ungar(his franchisee) it would definately want to improve it...at the least maintain it...David too is right on the other hand as there can be a possibility that he wants to use ingredients of a much higher quality than that provided.But dunkin' doughnuts can't still allow to do that as it has other franchisees to look after.Imagine that=>all the franchisees of dunkin' doughnuts use different ingredients with different quality..wouldn't this affects the image of the franchisor...also all the food items they sell will have a different taste depending on the ingredients.And if one of the franchisee buys cheap ingredients... thereby producing low quality out put ..the customers will not be satisfied...this will not only affect that franchisee but also the Brand image of the whole business worldwide.
To conclude,David may not be wrong with his idea but since dunkin' doughnuts is a big business with a good brand image...it has its' terms and requirements.
