Answer:
under
above
Explanation:
Consumer surplus is the difference between the willingness to pay of a consumer and the price of the good.
Consumer surplus = willingness to pay – price of the good
For example, if the willingness to pay for a book is $100 and the price of the book is $50.
Please check the attached image for a diagram showing consumer surplus
Consumer surplus : $100 - $50 = $50
Answer:
c. Bubble-Up's smaller size may make it more flexible in introducing innovations than Mega-Toy.
Explanation:
As Bubble UP is a small organization, it does not have significant market share and also it do not have huge cost as the production is low, accordingly if it invents or innovates a new set of toys, then it will be really easy for the organization to do so.
This is because the organization's small size is a benefit, as even in case of losses through innovation the losses will be small because of small investment, whereas losses that of the Mega Toy in case of unsuccessful innovation will be huge.
<u>Answer:</u> Production possibility curve
<u>Explanation:</u>
Production possibility curve (PPC) is a graph which represents the various combinations of output that can be made with the given resources and technology. PPC can also be called as Production possibility Frontier. PPC can be used to find the maximum possible production capacity of the firm.
PPF is utilized by the government to make efficient production as it produces only products and services it is best qualified to produce. The resources which are the inputs such as raw materials, labor, skills etc can be efficiently used with PPF.
Answer:
The value of the island as of 2012=$3,624,771,902
Explanation:
To determine the future value of the 1626 investment, use the expression below;
F.V=P.V(1+r)^n
where;
F.V=future value of investments
P.V=present value of the investment
r=annual interest rate
n=number of years
In our case;
F.V=unknown
P.V=$24
r=5%=5/100=0.05
n=386 years
Replacing;
F.V=24(1+0.05)^386
F.V=24(1.05)^386
F.V=$3,624,771,902
The value of the island as of 2012=$3,624,771,902
Answer:
There are no options listed, but what I can tell you for sure is that John's actions were both unethical and illegal.
What John did is unethical because it is not moral and it goes against all the principles that guide professional conduct. John also did something illegal because he was an accomplice in committing fraud against the company. He knowingly benefited from the accountant's illegal actions, and that is basically the legal definition of an accomplice to a crime.