Answer:
a) Break even = 480.5 units ≈ 481 Million units
b) Breakeven = 8,014,162,500 units
Explanation:
calculations are in millions
Breakeven = fixed costs / contribution per unit
selling price per unit = $47063/400 = $117.66
Variable cost = ($18756*75%) + ($31755*50%) = $14067 +15877.50 =$29944.5/400 units =$74.86
contribution = $117.66-$74.86 = $42.80
fixed costs = ( $18756*25%) +( $31755*50%) = $4689 + 15877.50 = $20566.50
Breakeven = $20566.50/$42.80 = 480.5 units
b) calculations
fixed costs = 20,566,500 + 300,000,000
= 320,566,500
break even = $320,566,500 /0.04
= 8,014,162,500 units
Answer: $20000
Explanation:
Since $100,000 is paid for the contract which will provide the use of manufacturing equipment for 5 years, the payment that can be deducted for each of the 5 years will be an equal payment.
Therefore, the payment that X Corp. can deduct in 2018 will be:
= $100,000 / 5
= $20000
Answer:
The correct answer to the following question will be "Consumption".
Explanation:
Investments, welfare spending, consumer spending are essential elements of GDP. That tells them what a nation is doing well. For every year, GDP is the world's total economic production.
Expenditure on resources consumption includes:
- Durable goods (Furniture, cars, etc).
- Non-durable goods (Oils. clothing, etc).
- Services (Education, health, etc).
Therefore, it's the right answer.
1) Town of Bayport:
We have that the residents value the fireworks at
a total of 50+100+300=450$. That is the utility they gain. But they
would also have to pay 360$ for the fireworks. The total outcome is
450$+(-360$)=90$. Hence, the outcome is positive and the fireworks pass
the cost benefit analysis.
If the fireworks' cost is to be split
equally, we have that each of the 3 residents has to pay 360/3=120$. Let
us now do the cost-benefit analysis for everyone.
Jacques stands to gain 50$ from the fireworks but would have to pay 120$. He will vote against it.
Also, Kyoko will gain 100$ but would have to pay 120$. He will lose utility/money from this so he will vote against.
Musashi on the other hand, would gain 300$ and only pay 120$. He is largely benefitted by this measure. Only he would
We have that 2 out of the 3 would vote against the fireworks, so that the fireworks will not be bought. The vote does not yield the same answer as the benefit-cost analysis.
2) Town of River Heights:
We have that the total value of the fireworks to the community
is 20+140+160=320$. The total value of the fireworks is lower than
their cost so their cost benefit analysis yields that they should not be
bought.
However, let's see what each resident says. The cost to each resident is 360/3=120$. Rina is against the fireworks since she will only gain 20$. Sean and Yvette are for the fireworks since they gain 140$ and 160$ respectively, which are larger than the cost of the fireworks to each of them (120$). Hence, 2 will vote for the fireworks and one will vote against and fireworks will be bought.
Again, the vote clashes with the cost-benefit analysis.
3) The first choice is wrong. It is very difficult for a government to provide the exact types of public goods that everyone wants because that would be too costly; one cannot have a public good that everyone pays for so that only a couple of people enjoy it. In our example, we saw that in every case, a public good and its production would have sime supporters and some adversaries.
Majority rule is not always the most efficient way to decide public goods; as we have seen in the second case, the cost-benefit analysis yields that the fireworks are not worth it but they are approved by the majority nonetheless.
The final sentence is correct. The differing preferences of the people make a clearcut choice impossible and the government has to take into account various tradeoffs and compromises in order to determine which public goods to provide.
Option D, Both A & C
Explanation:
A company invested $400,000 in a technology that reduced the overall costs of production by reducing their cost per unit from $2 to $1.85 . Later, a manager has an opportunity to outsource production to another company at a cost per unit of $1.75 . If you are the manager, you should consider the $400,000 as a sunk cost, not relevant to the decision and should ignore the $400,000 fixed cost.
Sunk cost is the cost which is already incurred in past and does not have any significance in decision making.
A sunk cost is already incurred in the fields of economy and business decision-making and can not be recovered. Sunk costs are contrasted with future costs, which can be avoided if measures are taken.
