Answer: They are both right.
Explanation:
Firms in every market will always maximise profit where their Marginal Revenue equals Marginal Cost because at this point, resources are being fully utilized. This is therefore no different in a Perfectly competitive market so Skip is correct.
Peggy is also correct however because in a Perfectly Competitive market, the demand curve is perfectly elastic. This creates a situation where the Price, Marginal Revenue and Average Revenue are all the same and represent the demand curve as well.
With the Price being the same as the Marginal Revenue in a Perfectly competitive firm, that means that where the Price equals Marginal Cost is where the Marginal Revenue equals Marginal Cost as well so indeed perfectly competitive firms maximize profit where price equals marginal cost.
Answer:
Mike's recognized gain from the transfer of the house to him is:
$175,000
Explanation:
a) Data and Calculations:
Marital property = $1,500,000
Cost of property = $575,000
Residual value = $925,000
Alimony to Karen = $750,000 ($150,000 * 5)
Balance (Mike's) = $175,000
$175,000 represents the excess of the fair market value of the marital property after deducting the cost of property and the alimony paid to Karen. A gain of $175,000 is recognized by Mike after the property sale.
Answer:
If Aquataste sticks to the agreement, Waterland has an incentive to renege on the agreement by producing 350 gallons because Waterland’s profits would then increase from $375 to $525.
Explanation:
If Waterland and Aquataste both produce 250 gallons each and charge $1.50 per gallon.
There would be 500 gallons in total, and the total revenue would be
$1.50 × 500 = $750
which when shared equally between Waterland and Aquataste would result in each of them getting $375 each.
But if Aquataste sticks to the agreement, Waterland has an incentive to renege on the agreement by producing 350 gallons, still charging $1.50 and Waterland’s profits would then be
$1.50 × 350 = $525
Hope this Helps!!!
The correct answer to this open question is the following.
This can relate to my own understanding of business ethics in that corporations do really have a certain influence on employee's behaviors, but up to the point of reference or comparison. Employees have their own belief systems inherited by parents, family, and primary groups of reference.
It could make sense to look at corporate's capacity for global change at this level if the leaders are truly committed to sharing positive values that not only impact the workplace but can be extended to all areas of life.
Indeed, the workplace is where most people spend most of the time during the week. So it would be good that corporate leaders could create the kind of corporate culture in which employees feel comfortable, listened to, and appreciated.
If this is the case, corporations really can have a certain influence on employee's behaviors. Unfortunately, in most corporations, employees can see their leaders setting the example. On the contrary, these leaders are the ones that first break the rules and behave in different or questionable ways.
