Answer: reduced by $80 billion
Explanation:
An expansionary gap is when the actual output is more than the potential output. From the question, we are told that an economy is operating with output $400 billion above its natural level, and fiscal policymakers want to close this expansionary gap and that the central bank agrees to adjust the money supply to hold the interest rate constant, so there is no crowding out.
We are also given the marginal propensity to consume is 4/5, and told that the price level is completely fixed in the short run.
To close the expansionary gap, the government would need to reduce its spending. To solve this, we have to calculate the multiplier. This will be:
Multiplier = 1/(1 - MPC)
= 1/(1 - 4/5)
= 1/1-0.8
= 1/0.2
= 5
Therefore, the government expenditure or spending will be reduced by:
= $400 billion/5
=$80 billion
<span>Answer:
Gross Pay: $1200
Less Health Ins: (42.50)
Taxable Pay: 1157.50
SS Tax: 71.77 (1157.50 *.062)
Medicare Tax: 16.78 (1157.50 *.0145)
FIT: 91.79
Net Pay: 977.17
FIT calcualted as follows: Taxable less allowances (1157.50 less (71.15*4) = 872.9
(872.9 * .15)-39.15 = 91.79</span>
Answer: applicants are given a math test
Explanation: I just did it
Answer:
Consider the following explanation
Explanation:
Context
Game theory involves two players. They have more than one option to decide. Pay off from each options adopted by two players are available. They have to select a strategy which will maximize their own return. But for optimizing their decision, they have to consider the action of his rival.
In this problem, two players are firm A and firm B. They have two strategies low output and high output. The strategies of firm a are measured in rows and for firm B in columns. They have to select a strategy which will maximize their payy off. Each cell has two pay offs. First one is for Firm A and second one is for firm B.
1. Dominant strategy is a strategy which will always give higher payoffs in comparison with pay off of other strategies. Consider first strategy of firm 1. If it adopts strategy of low output, then firm 2 can also adopt either strategy of low output or high output. In that case pay off of firm 1 will be 300 or 200.
Alteratively if firm 1 adopts high output then pay offs are 200 or 75. 200 is earned if firm B also go for low productivity. It is 75 if firm B adopts high productivity.
Now compare two payoffs side by side. Note that firm A has higher pay off in low output [300,200] in comparison with the pay off of high output [200,75]. So whatever strategy firm B adopts, Firm A will always go for low production. So low production strategy of firm A dominates high production strategy.
Same result is not observed for firm B. Pay off from low production strategy of firm B is [ 250,75]. Pay off from high production strategy are [100,100]. Now compare the two. If Firm A go for low production, then firm B will select low production. It will give pay off 250. Similarly when firm A decides for high production, then firm will also decide for high production. It will maximize its pay off. Amount is 100. Thus no strategy dominates for firm B.
Answer: Net income would increase by $6,230
Explanation:
Cost if offer is not accepted and Crane produces inhouse;
= 7,140 + 9,605 + 10,710 + 16,200
= $43,655
Cost if Crane accepts offer;
Crane could avoid $3,000 of fixed overhead = 16,200 - 3,000 = $13,200
Purchase price = 2.85 * 8,500 units = $24,225
Total cost = 24,225 + 13,200
= $37,425
Difference = 43,655 - 37,425
= $6,230
<em>Income would increase by $6,230.</em>
