<span>c. common resources are rival in consumption.
In the tragedy of the commons, William Forster Lloyd presented the example of a common resource being over used and destroyed because for any individual abusing the resource, they gained a benefit while the damage to the resource was paid by everyone.
So let's look at the available options and see what makes sense, or doesn't make sense.
a. people consider the value of resources in the future more than in the present.
* If this were true, the there wouldn't be a tragedy of the commons. So this is an incorrect answer.
b. markets do not account for the presence of property rights.
* The tragedy of the commons doesn't involve property rights. EVERYONE in the community is allowed to use the commons. The problem is irresponsible overuse of the common resource. So this is also an incorrect answer.
c. common resources are rival in consumption.
* This is the correct answer. The concept of Rivalry is where a common resource can not be simultaneous consumed by multiple users, or if the consumption of a resource decreases its utility to another consumer. In the tragedy, if one person grazes (consumes) more than their fair share, the commons gets over grazed and over time stops producing. Each person who's overgrazing does get a tangible short term benefit for doing so, but everyone has to pay the cost.
d. government does not efficiently allocate society's scarce resources.
* This is also a wrong answer. It's true that the commons could be regulated by the government, but then it would no longer be the commons.</span>
Answer:
Relatively more than
Explanation:
As we know,
The levered firm is that firm in which debt is involved whereas unlevered firm is that firm in which there is no debt involved.
As if the EBIT drops, the return on equity drop is relatively more than the ROE of unlevered firms due to involvement and not involvement of debt. As it generated high risk and return which is gradual increases during a given period of time
Answer:
A. dividendsminus−received deduction.
Explanation:
This allows companies to avoid mostly third taxes on the same earnings.
It is explained to be a federal tax deduction in the U.S. that is given to certain corporations that get dividends from related entities. The amount of the dividend that a company can deduct from its income tax is tied to how much ownership the company has in the dividend-paying company. However, there are criteria that must be met in order to qualify for a DRD.
The dividends received deduction allows a company that receives a dividend from another company to deduct that dividend from its income and reduce its income tax accordingly.
Answer:
Investment in the investee will be overstated, retained earnings will be overstated.
Explanation:
The effect on the investor’s statement of financial position is shown below:-
Because the investor owns more than 30 percent of the equity approach has to be used. This will result in overestimated investments of $8,000 which comes from $20,000 × 40 percent in investee, which will also result in overestimated retained earnings of $8,000 which comes from $20,000 × 40 percent
Answer:
Explanation:
Since Ike is loss averse, the loss will be felt by him than the gain. The principle of loss aversion is prominent in the domain of economics, and people with loss aversion always prefer to avoid losses than to acquire equivalent gain.
This means that the increase in taxes of $1,000 that Ike experienced, will make him to have a very high disutility than the $1,000 gain from his stock portfolio.
As a loss averse Ike is, the $1,000 loss as a result of the tax have impact in 2.5times more than the $1,000 gain if we're to be handled theoretically.
