It is to be noted that the company is not allocating resources efficiently. See the attached image for the Graphically illustration required.
<h3>What is allocation of resources?</h3>
This is simply the ability to efficiently distribute resources across all aspects of production.
<h3>What is the proof that the company is misappropriating resources?</h3>
MRS is the gradient of the budget line is defined by the change in the Y axis divided by the change in the x axis.
In other words, MRS is the number of units of x that a customer is ready to give up in exchange for units of y.
Note that
the MRS fo the budget line is:
-dy/dx
= -10.6/6.25
= -1.6, that is media 1.6 units of media is given for every unit of business travel.
However, the corporation claims that the MRS is -1, which indicates that for every unit of business trip, they give away one unit of media. In other words, they are paying a price equal to the cost of business travel, resulting in a resource misappropriation.
Learn more about allocation of resources at;
brainly.com/question/5322091
#SPJ1
Answer:
C. <u>shortage</u>; <u>elastic</u>; <u>the same number of</u>
Explanation:
The law of demand states an inverse relationship between quantity demanded of a good and it's price.
Price elasticity of demand refers to the degree of responsiveness of quantity demanded to a change in price. When quantity demanded changes less relatively to change in price, it is termed as inelastic demand while when the change in quantity demanded is lot more than the change in price, it is termed as elastic demand.
In the given case, after the upper limit price has been capped and fixed, this would create a rush and tickets for the sports events would be sold off since the quantity demanded would rise.
This would result into a shortage since demand shall exceed supply and since the price cannot be raised above $50.
The more elastic the demand, more shortage of tickets it would result into and the same number of people will attend the events i.e the seating capacity is not increased.
Answer: $24,747.92
Based on the given amounts of increased in savings for the first 3 months, we have the following assumptions:
1) That the savings increase by 2.44% monthly
$18,962.50 -18,500=462.50, 462.50/18962*100=2.44%
$19,436.56--$18,962.50=$474.06, 474.06/19,436.56*100=2.44%
$19,922.48-$19,436.56=485.92, 485.92/19,922.48*100=2.44%
2) That the monthly interest for the first 3 months had an incremental of $0.30 monthly
462.50,474.06 and 485.92 has an incremental of 11.56 and 11.86 (with a difference of .30)
Continuing on with the increments gives savings of $24,747.92 in the 12th month.
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