Answer:
There would be a surplus of 2,000 bags, and producers would be happy with the law.
Explanation:
Unlike a price floor that prevents the price of movie theater popcorn from falling below the equilibrium price level of $15, a price ceiling of $5 prevents the price of movie theater popcorn from rising above $20. When a price ceiling is set above the equilibrium price, the quantity supplied exceeds the quantity demanded by 2,000 packets of popcorn, and there will be a surplus supply.
Okay. So Joan receives 25% commission on the profits of the cars she sells. She got $8,870 on the profit last month. To find the commission, let’s multiply the amount of profit by the percentage. 8,870 * 0.25 is 2,217.5. There. Joan earned $2,217.50 in commission last month.
Answer:
-0.136 and $528
Explanation:
Given that
p = 50 - 0.5Q
where,
Q = 88
So, p equals to
= 50 - 0.5 × 88
= 50 - 44
= $6
As it is mentioned that
p = 50 - 0.5Q
0.5Q = 50 - p
Q = 100 - 2p
And we know that
Price elasticity of demand is
= Percentage Change in quantity demanded ÷ Percentage Change in price
So,
= -2 × (6 ÷ 88)
= -0.136
And, the revenue is
= Price × Quantity
= $6 × 88
= $528
Answer:
b. the more wealth she has, the less utility she gets from an additional dollar of wealth.
Explanation:
Utility is the satisfaction derived from a good. Total Utility is the total satisfaction from all units of a good. Marginal Utility is the additional satisfaction from an additional unit of a good.
The Law of Diminishing Marginal Utility states that : As consumer gets more & more of a good, the additional utility (satisfaction) from each successive unit keeps on declining. It implies that marginal utility decreases, & total utility increases at a decreasing rate.
Therefore : A person has more marginal utility (additional satisfaction) from an additional dollar, if he has less money (dollars). And, relatively less marginal utility from an additional dollar if he has more money (dollars).
Example : A rich person having millions of dollars would get less marginal utility (additional satisfaction) from gaining a single dollar, than a poor person having few dollars.
Answer:
2) assumption not made
Explanation:
The original statement does not include any assumption about what the companies are doing about this issue, it just proposes an idea of fair compensation.
maybe whoever wrote this statement believes that very few companies or none at all actually compensate homeowners for a reduction in the market value of their properties, but it doesn't state it. It is also possible that the statement assumes that companies are paying some compensations or were paying some compensations but are not willing to continue to do it since no legislation forces them to do so. The author's position is vague and not clear with respect to what the companies are currently doing.
