Answer:
Yes, the Keynesian economists would favor this action.
Explanation:
Keynesians argue that in times of recession, the aggregate demand should be increased through government policies so that the economy recovers and output increases. The policy by Bush government put more money in the hands of people and as such their purchasing power increased. This increase in purchasing power would lead to an increase in aggregate demand according to the Keynesians.
Answer:
Economic growth can be caused by random fluctuations, seasonal fluctuations, changes in the business cycle, and long-term structural causes. Policy can influence the latter two.
Business cycles refer to the regular cyclical pattern of economic boom (expansions) and bust (recessions). Recessions are characterized by falling output and employment; at the opposite end of the spectrum is an “overheating” economy, characterized by unsustainably rapid economic growth and rising inflation. Capital investment spending is the most cyclical component of economic output, whereas consumption is one of the least cyclical. Government can temper booms and busts through the use of monetary and fiscal policy. Monetary policy refers to changes in overnight interest rates by the Federal Reserve. When the Fed wishes to stimulate economic activity, it reduces interest rates; to curb economic activity, it raises rates. Fiscal policy refers to changes in the federal budget deficit. An increasing deficit stimulates economic activity, whereas a decreasing deficit curbs it. By their nature, policy changes to influence the business cycle affect the economy only temporarily because booms and busts are transient. In recent decades, expansions have become longer and recessions shallower, perhaps because of improved stabilization policy, or perhaps because of good luck.
Answer:
The incomplete part of the question is "Using a cap-and-trade system of tradable emission allowances will eliminate half of the sulfur dioxide pollution at a cost of $1 million per year. If the permits are not tradable, what will be the cost of eliminating half of the pollution? If permits cannot be traded, then the cost of the pollution reduction will be $1 million per year." The full question is attched as picture as well
1) Tradable permit system
Then lower MAC firm will abate the all pollution units
Then as MAC1 = $250, MAC2 = $275
Firm 1 = Consolidated electric
Firm 2 = Commonwealth utility
Then 1 will sell all permits to 2, at a price between $250 & $275.
So total cost of abatement of 20 units = MAC1 * 20
= $250 * 20 Unit
= $5,000
2) Non-tradable permits
Total cost = MC1*10 + MC2*10
= $2,500 + $2,750
= $5,250
During the process of operational planning, management must compare market demand with Capacity.
Capacity refers to the company's ability to fulfill the amount of demand that exist for the products. If a company has a lot of orders without the ability to fulfill it, they will not be able to rake in the profit from the market.
Answer:
$76,620.83
Explanation:
According to the scenario, computation of the given data are as follows
Future Value (FV) = $100,000
Rate of interest = 10% yearly
Rate of interest (Rate) = 10%÷ 2 = 5% semiannually
Number of period (Nper) = 9 × 2 = 18
Face value = $100,000
Payment (pmt) = $100,000 × (6%÷2) = $3,000
By putting the value in excel present value formula, we get,
PV = $76,620.83
Attachment is attached below