Answer:
The percentage change in nominal GDP from 2013 to 2014 was 4.29%
The percentage change in real GDP from 2012 to 2013 was 1.48%
The percentage change in real GDP from 2012 to 2013 was higher than the percentage change in real GDP from 2011 to 2012. FALSE
Explanation:
In order to calculate this we just have to calculate the percentages with a rule of thirds:

To calculate the first one we use the nominal GDP which is the GDP with the current market value:

To calculate the change in real GDP we use the values adapted to a pre-agreed monetary value, in this case the dollar at 2009:

To calculate the 2011 to 2012 we insert the values:

So with this we know that it is wasn´t higher the percentage change from 2012-2013, than that of 2011-2012
Locating close to the raw material supplies can reduce where raw materials are heavy and large quantities are used up in production costs. This is particularly true for industries like steel, which uses large quantities of iron ore in the production process.
Answer:
1. True
2. False
Explanation:
A perfect competition is characterised by many buyers and sellers of homogenous goods and services. Market prices are set by the forces of demand and supply. There are no barriers to entry or exit of firms into the industry.
In the long run, firms earn zero economic profit. If in the short run firms are earning economic profit, in the long run firms would enter into the industry. This would drive economic profit to zero.
Also, if in the short run, firms are earning economic loss, in the long run, firms would exit the industry until economic profit falls to zero.
An example of perfect competition is the market for farm produce.
I hope my answer helps you
Answer:
The correct answer is letter "A": total value from trade in a market.
Explanation:
Canadian economist Alex Tabarrok (born in 1966) explains social surplus as the sum of consumer surplus, producer surplus, and bystanders surplus. Tabarrok takes an integrative approach in consumer surplus by stating <em>social surplus encompasses every economic trade in the market rather than only consumers and producers surplus.</em>
<em />
Besides, Tabarrok believes when there are major external costs or benefits, the market will not reach its social surplus.
Answer:
Your opportunity cost of attending a game compared with the opportunity cost facing a college student 10 years ago is:
A) higher, because more games are televised today.
Opportunity costs are the cost of choosing one alternative from another.
In this case, when college students attend college football games they are unable to do other activities, not only while they are at the stadium or going to the stadium, but they are not able to purchase other goods. The cost of those alternatives that are lost are higher now because many college football games are televised now, before if you wanted to see a game you had to go to the game. So a student is now able to watch the game while doing other activities, or saving money for buying something else.
Can this change in opportunity cost account for the decline in college football attendance?
B) Yes, because these changes increase the opportunity cost of watching football games in person.
Even though opportunity costs do not involve actual cash payments, they are still important and individuals do consider them when they are choose one option over another. E.g. imagine if you had to choose between spending a considerable amount of money by attending a game (ticket, gas, beverages, etc.) or watching that game on TV and buying a few clothes instead or going on a date, etc. What option would you choose?