Yes, stores should be forced to obey minimum prices for a good or a company that is selling a service should as well. They should have to obey by this so that price competition isn't ongoing in the market. Larger producers can often charge a smaller amount for a product because they are producing them in high qualities. By charging less it gives them a competitive advantage over their competition in means of price. Unless the item is on clearance because a company is discontinuing stock of that item, they should have a set minimum as they do a set maximum they are allowed to charge for that item.
There is not enough info. please provide more.
<span>Choose the best closing for a message requesting the receiver's support for a proposed change in a benefits plan. C</span><span>ontacting me by December 1 about your support of this new benefits plan will allow me to present this proposal at the next strategic planning session. Out of the above options, this option sounds the best and hits all of the necessary points to conclude a request. </span>
Solution:
Let's start by assuming that the taxi ride demand is extremely elastic, to the extent that it is vertically sluggish! If the cabbies raise the fair price by 10% from 10.00 per mile to 11.00 per kilometre, the number of riders remains 20.
Total income before fair growth= 20* 10= 200.
Total income following fair growth = 11* 20= 220.
A 10% increase in the fare therefore leads to a 10% increase in the driver's revenue.
Therefore, the assumption in this situation is that the cab drivers think the taxi driving requirement is highly inelastic.
The demand curve facing the drivers of the cab is still inelastic, but not vertically bent.
When the rate increased from 10% to 11, riders declined from 20% to 19%
Total revenue before fair growth is 20* 10= 200
The gap between revenue and fair growth is 19* 11= 209
This means that a realistic 10% raise doesn't result in a 10% boost on income Because the market curve for taxi rides is not 100% inelastic, but rather low inelastic, so that a fair increase (control) allows consumers to lose their incomes.
Answer:
False
Explanation:
The growth of 4% for 25 years would nominally signify a 100% increase and you might think that the economy has double its size. But you must take into account that’s this is a compound growth then the economy would reach the double of its size before 25 years.
Think that he initial size of the economy is 10 and it grows 4% then an annual growth will be 10,4 now the compound grow is adding up 0,4 to the initial size of 10. Then you recalculate a growth of 4% for the second year this means 10.816 grow.
If you notice the extra 0.016 increase for the second year is the effect of calculating the 4% increase based on the previous size 10 plus 0.4.
