Answer:
- <u><em>d) increases as the interest rate decreases.</em></u>
Explanation:
<em>Present value</em> is the value today; future value is the value some time in the future.
The mere notion of the value of money in time should tell you that, further away in time (towards the future) a sum of money is found, the lower its value today.
Then, you should be able to rule out some propositions that are contrary to that intuition:
- a<em>) decreases as the time period decreases</em> ↔ clearly false: the present value increases as the time period decreases
- <em>e) is directly related to the time period</em>. ↔ clearly false: the present value is inversely related to the time period.
How is the present value related to the future value?
They are directly related: the higher a lump sum in the future the higher the value of it in the present; more money is more money always. More money in the future has more value in the present; less money in the future has less value in the present. Thus, the option <em>b). is inversely related to the future value</em> is false
How is the present value related to the interest rate?. Which one is true?
- c) is directly related to the interest rate, or
- d) increases as the interest rate decreases
The present value is calculated discounted the future value at the interest rate. The interest rate is in the denominator of the equation to pass from future value to present value. Thus, they are inversely related (c is false); the less the interest rate, the higher the present value of a future amount (confirm d is true).
Therefore, the correct answer is that <em>the present of a lump sum future amount: </em><em><u>d) increases as the interest rate decreases.</u></em>
<u />
First of all, the laissez-faire economics is also known as hands-off apporach. This is from the 19th century. The leaders of the Middle class had a good reponse by embracing this type of approach. Some of the people looked to modify this kind of apporach for the government to have more control. Generally was accepted but also wished to be modified in order for the high class leaders to get control
There are several negative effects..It is usually more expensive, it will also reduce GDP .ect
Answer:
False.
Explanation:
The concept of "Nash equilibrium" is been by economist and also by "gamers" in game theory. Nash equilibrium is so good for making decisions and the determination of strategies.
In playing this game, the players or participants can use the pure strategy or the mixed strategy. The mixed strategy is the use of different strategies randomly.
"If a player chooses a mixed strategy in a Nash equilibrium, this implies that the payoff from using that mixed strategy is the same as the payoff from using any of the pure strategies in it".
The statement given above is FALSE because the PAYOFF WILL INCREASE IF WE ARE TO PLAY A MIXED STRATEGY.
For instance if we have a head of 1 and -1, and a tail of -1 and 1, the payoff for pure strategy is likely one or minus one but for a mixed strategy it could be zero.
Answer: Person who enjoys the benefits of a collective good, action, or service without any effort on their part.
Explanation:
In Economics, Free riders are people who benefit from resources and/or goods that are communal in nature and yet either do not pay or pay an insubordinate amount for enjoying same. Essentially they enjoy the benefits of a collective good without any effort on their part.
As a result, the good might become overused and degraded as it is not being maintained enough.
