The assumption in perfect competition that there is an easy entry and exit from the market implies that firms will make a zero economic profit in the long run.
<h3>Why do firms make a zero economic profit?</h3>
In a pure competition, companies are allowed to freely enter and leave.
They take advantage of this to enter a market when prices are high and economic profit is being made.
As more firms enter, the economic profit keeps decreasing as prices decrease until this profit gets to zero and then turns to economic losses.
At this point, some firms will leave the market to stop making losses. When they do, the supply will decrease which leads to prices rising once more.
The cycle will then repeat itself and keep the companies at a zero economic profit in the long run.
Find out more on perfect competitions at brainly.com/question/1748396
#SPJ1
Is this a paper you have write or do they have Any answer choices
Answer:
Land (Dr.) $1,800,000
Land Improvements $540,000
Building 2 $660,000
Building 1 demolish expense $346,400
Land grading expense $187,400
Building 3 construction cost $2,242,000
Land 2 improvement cost $168,000
Cash (Cr.) $22,143,800
Explanation:
Mitzu Co. has paid lump sum amount for 2 buildings and land. The building 1 has no value so its value is considered as zero and all the amount will be attributed to land and building 2. The company has also incurred costs for the demolish of building 1 which will be charged in the books of accounts as one off expense.
Answer:1. The reason that the varsity team lost to JV team is lack of working together as a team.
2.Coach P. when selecting the rowers for the two teams should have looked at both the psychological(personality types and traits, if they are leader or followers etc.) as well as the physical aspect ( Stamina, Speed ,Coordination, Strength etc.) of each individual.
explanation:
1:Even though the varsity team consisted of the best individuals for speed , strength, coordination and endurance, they lacked the cohesiveness to perform as a unit. Each of the eight individual rowers had to be single-mindedly attuned to one another in order to synchronize their rowing and perform in unison. Unfortunately, the team also too many disruptor and lacked a leader.
2:The Coach should have experimented more by creating different scenarios to see how well the individuals responded and performed to one another in different situations when it came to a team environment. For example, putting the rowers in total control of the team's dynamics is the best hands on lesson they could ever experience. This would have allowed the rowers a deeper understanding what it take to be winner from a loser.
3.Coach P. should switch both the teams for Tuesday since after extensive observations and evaluation he has witnessed JV work as a better team. The JV team possessed better synergy, synchronization, and shared a common goal causing them to win more frequently than the Varsity team, despite the fact that the Varsity team had better individual members. In addition, there has been a precedent for switching boats. During the mid-1990’s, the Cornell Coach faced asimilar situation as Coach P. and as a result of him making the switch, both the JV and Varsity teams ended up winning the Eastern Championships. This demonstrates that it is more likely thatthe teams will win if they agree to switch. Moreover, even if Coach P. decided not to switch the teams, it would have taken quite a while to rebuild Varsity’s team structure, morale, and overall team synergy, implying that they probably would not have been ready in time to compete and win the race as the Varsity team anyway.
