I think the correct answer would be the first option. Deadweight losses occur when the quantity of an output produced is less than, but not when it is greater than, the competitive equilibrium quantity. It is also known as allocative inefficiency. It is a loss of efficiency that will happen when the equilibrium of a good is not reached or the supply and the demand of a good are not in equilibrium such that the quantity of the goods is less than the equilibrium quantity. It is a loss due to inefficient use of the resources available. Price controls, minimum wage and taxation are said to cause deadweight loss.
A competitive market refers to a market where there is no monopoly of producers of goods and services, therefore, competition is high because they all have mission to satisfy the wants of a large consumers.
The characteristics of a competitive market are:
- Homogeneity of product: The product are made by different producers and encourages competition.
- There are existence of many buyers and sellers in the market.
- There is an access to derive perfect information on price of a product at any outlet in the market.
- There are no charges for transaction costs in a competitive market
- No barriers to entry into or exit.
In conclusion, there is no producers which can affect the market price through its supplying rate because there are excess supply of similar product in the market.
Learn more about competitive market here
<em>brainly.com/question/7024827</em>
Answer:
The answer is NO.
Explanation:
The answer is NO since the tax cut does not equate or rather would not be an effective stimulus due to the fact that debt reduction would not stimulate or increase consumption.
To properly understand the narrative of the question and the answer herein, let us define what effective stimulus is.
Effective stimulus or as preferably known as An economic stimulus is the utilization of funds or design of that helps agitate growth during downtime or recession in a country. The decision makers of a country mostly utilize the tactics of giving rebates and increasing government expenses to name a few.
Now relating it back to the question, since the intention of the rebate is to ease payment on tax does not equate to increase in consumption, the answer is a NO.
