Answer:
If the market for labor was perfectly competitive, then the wage (price of labor) would be determined by the industry, not by individual firms. Therefore, individual firms would be wage takers. The equilibrium wage would be determined by the market and the supply of labor (the workers) should be perfectly elastic.
The demand of labor = marginal revenue product. Marginal revenue product is calculated by multiplying total marginal physical output by marginal revenue per unit of output.
Answer:
The floating exchange system
Explanation:
The floating exchange rate is a system where the Forex market determines the currency price of a country relative to other currencies. The forces of demand and supply drive the prices.
In the floating exchange system, governments do not directly fix their exchange rates as they do in the fixed-exchange-rate. However, through central banks' monetary policies, governments try to keep their currency prices competitive for international trade.
The Answer is (A) trust me I got 100% on my test.
Oh and your welcome.
Answer:
B: the firm's income will remain unchanged whether it sell tortillas or taco shells
Explanation:
The firm's income will still be the same because additional cost are incurred when producing the taco shells see below for calculation
When the firm processes tortillas: it makes a revenue of $22,500 and a cost of $8,000 realizing a profit of $14,500.
When the firm decides to fry the tortillas to make hard taco shells: it makes a revenue of $26,700 and total cost of $12,200 ($8,000+$4,200) then realizing a profit of $14,500.
Thus, the reason the profit won't change is because the firm incurred additional cost in processing the taco shells.
Answer with Explanation:
The negligence act would be used here and for a plaintiff to prove to win the suit following four factors must have to be proved which are:
- Duty of care
- Breach
- Cause
- Harm
<u>Part 1. Duty of Care</u>
The railroad company owed a duty of care to every person rail station and the way they had exercised this duty of care was in the form of red light that David Harris saw, which means they exercised reasonable duty of care to avoid the misshapen. This means the duty of care that David Harris owes to himself was not crossing the yellow line.
<u>Part 2. Breach</u>
In fact David Harris was the one to avoid the red light signal and was out of the yellow line. So the breach of duty of care was of David Harris not of the railroad company.
<u>Part 3. Cause</u>
The cause of the breach of duty of care by David Harris was negligence because neither was the railroad signals were allowing him nor he was saving somebody else's life.
<u>Part 4. Harm</u>
Yes, the negligence of David Harris resulted in his death which is the most harm a person can suffer.
<u>Conclusion:</u>
As only harm was satisfactory not the other 3 factors were in the favor of plaintiff, so the widow's argument is incorrect and David Harris was negligent not the railroad company. Hence railroad company owes nothing in compensation to the David Harris's widow.