Answer:
c) 10% more peanut butter on the shelves
Explanation:
Since peanut butter has a negative income elasticity of demand (-0.5) with a decrease in income, there should be an increase in the demand. This is usually true for cheaper goods or goods with low added value. The change in demand (D) is represented as follows:
As a result, you should stock 10% more peanut butter on the shelves.
The answer is c).
The answer is $100. The consumer surplus is $100 because that is the difference between what Anna has set as her ceiling for the purchase of the bicycle, $500, and then subtracted by the amount that she actually does pay, $400, that difference is what is referred to as consumer surplus. What the consumer is mentally committed to paying minus what the consumer actually pays.
I believe u should not give put loans at all ,or make the interest rate very low so they 'll have a better chance to pay it off
Answer:
9,315
Explanation:
The 83(b) election of the IRC which allows the employe of restricted stock to pay taxes on the fair market value at the time were granted.
It applies when the stocks are subject to vesting
The 83(b) election becomes useful when the employee has confidence that market value will increase and thus, saving taxes in the future.
If the market price decrease over the years or the company files for bankrupcy, the taxpersons will have pay income taxes for a worthless amount.
Also, if he leaves the company before esting the shares, it would had pay taxes for shares it won't receive.
So, resuming: under election 83(b) we use granted time value
1,035 x 9 = 9,315
Answer:
The basic difference between both are explained below.
Explanation:
Explicit collusion is where firms meet and agree to charge the same price, and an example of implicit collusion is price leadership. Unlike explicit collusion, implicit collusion unlike explicit collusion, implicit collusion is where firms signal to each other without actually meeting and agreeing to charge the same price.
Unlike explicit collusion, wherever the occurrence of an accommodation that would lend ammunition for an antitrust court case might be unscrewed, implied collusion is challenging to document as well as to verify. Implicit collusion frequently seems to be nothing more than all firms individually responding to shifting market circumstances.
