Answer:
decline and product diversity in the market increases.
Explanation:
Competitive price searcher markets are those that have little barriers of entry for new firms.
Also the new forms are able to engage in transactions that are profitable. That is they easily take a market share.
In this scenario it will result in greater diversity of products as many firms can now produce goods that will be profitable in the market.
Also it will lead to a decrease in profit of existing firms as the new firm gets some of the market share
Answer:
c. both a monopoly and a competitive firm
Explanation:
A monpolistically competitive firm is a firm that has the features of both a monopoly and a competitive firm
Characteristics of a monopoly in a monpolistically competitive firm:
1. Products are differentiated in a monpolistically competitive firm.
2. Firms are price setters.
Characteristics of perfect competition in a monpolistically competitive firm:
1. There is free entry and exist into the industry.
2. There are many sellers
Answer: price leadership
Explanation: Price leadership is a circumstance where one business, typically the dominant one in its market, sets prices that its rivals follow closely.
This business is typically the one with the minimum cost of production, thus being able to outperform the prices charged by any rival who tries to set their prices below the price range of the market leader.
Rivals could increase prices than the cost leader, but this would likely lead to lower share of the market unless rivals were able to distinguish their goods adequately.
Hence from the above we can conclude that the given case depicts price leadership strategy.
Answer:
The answer is: She used the justice approach, realizing that the greater good is served because people learn to help each other in their own interest.
Explanation:
Justice approach: an ethical decision is a decision that distributes benefits and costs (or punishments) among those involved in a fair, equitable, and impartial way.
Paula used this approach because she believed the agents had acted improperly and that they were harming the US Secret Service.
I consider any organization a team, so in order for it to work well its members must be respected both by their peers and by the other teams´ members. If you consider the various types of activities this specific agency carries out, other not so friendly "teams" (other secret services or even terrorists) could use this type of information to damage or compromise those activities. So the well being of all the country was being jeopardized by a group of bad agents.
