Answer:
D. Cournot model.
Explanation:
This is explained to be a model pattern wherever 2 companies in most cases that are in duopoly are seen to provide a sort of product at the same time meeting a needed amount and most importantly severally as a kind of competition. As seen above, that was the case of the two firns in the above question. Founding economist fathers has explained that if a game contains a continuous strategy set then it's not forever simple to depict the strategic kind and outcome matrix is an in depth kind as a tree. so as to gift Cournot game, new notation are going to be helpful if a game contains a continuous strategy.
Answer:
$760
Explanation:
The tax credit for child and dependent care expenses allows working taxpayers to discount up to 35% of care expenses. The exact percentage that you are allowed to deduct depends on your income:
- if you earn up to $15,000, you can discount 35% of dependent care expenses of up to $3,000 per child.
- the percentage decreases for every $2,000 of income (1% decrease per every $2,000), until your income reaches $43,000 where it remains at 20%.
The Kent's earned $53,000 during the year, so they can claim up to 20% of their children's care expenses = $3,800 x 20% = $760
Answer:
affect nominal but not real variables. This view that money is ultimately neutral is consistent with classical theory.
Explanation:
This idea is held by classical economists (not by most economists) since they believe in the quantitative theory of money:
MV = PQ
- M = quantity of money
- V = velocity of money
- P = price level
- Q = quantity of goods
Classical theory was abandoned 90 years ago (according to classical theory, recessions were not possible and couldn't exist, but then the Great Depression came and the impossible became true). Neo-classical or monetarists appeared in the 1960s, and lately, neo-neo-classical appeared with George W. Bush. The problem with the quantitative theory is that it needs the following things to be true in order to hold, and empirical evidence over the last 90 years showed that none of them are true:
- the velocity of money has to be constant (AND IT IS NOT CONSTANT)
- real output is independent on money supply (NOT TRUE)
- causation goes from money to prices (MODERN ECONOMISTS BELIEVE IT IS THE OTHER WAY)
