Answer:
a) If bribes cost $1,000 each, how much will a housing inspector make each year in bribes?
So, if the corrupt inspector approves two newly built structures each week, ti means that he is bribed twice per week. There are 52 weeks in a year, so he gets a total of 104 bribes (52 x 2). If each bribe costs $1,000, then he makes a total of: $1,000 x 104 = $104,000 in bribes per year.
c) Corrupt officials may have an incentive to reduce the provision of government services to help line their own pockets.
This statement is true. Corrupt officials will want to have private companies they can obtain bribes from provide government services. It increases the probability of them making money from bribes.
d) What if reducing the number of inspectors from 20 to 10 only increased the equilibrium bribe from $1,000 to $1,500?
Reducing the number of inspectors in hafl means that each inspector now gets twice the bribes. Because the equilibrium price did not double as did the quantity of bribes, each inspector will make less money than expected, but they will still the incentive to collect all the four bribes per week.
Using penetration pricing, a company initially charges a low price, both to discourage competition and to grab a sizeable share of the market.
In order to attract customers, the penetration pricing approach entails launching a new good or service at a cheap price. Gaining market share and aggressively attracting clients through low costs are the objectives. In a pricing strategy known as penetration pricing, a product's price is first set very low to quickly reach a large portion of the market and spread word of mouth. The tactic relies on the notion that consumers will transfer to the new brand as a result of the price reduction.
When companies launch a low price for a brand-new good or service, this is known as penetration pricing. Competitors are compelled to match the offer or immediately implement alternative techniques since the first price undercuts it. Customers of rivals could switch to the less expensive product.
Learn more about penetration pricing here: brainly.com/question/3521758
#SPJ4
Answer:
- <em>The slope of the demand curve at point A is </em><u><em> </em></u><u>- $0.40/unit</u>
- <em>The slope of the demand curve at point B is </em><u>- $0.14/unit</u>
Explanation:
See the file attached with the figure corresponding to this question.
<em>The slope of a curve</em> at a given point is the slope of the line tangent to the curve at that point.
<em><u>Point A:</u></em>
The tangent line to the <em>demand curve at point A is</em> drawn and passes through the points (20, 34) and (45, 24).Then, the slope is:
- slope = rise / run = ΔP / Δq = $ (34 - 24) / (20 - 45) units
- slope = - $10 /25units = - $2/5units = - $0.40/unit.
The minus sign indicates the that price decreases when the quantity increases
<u><em>Point B:</em></u>
<em>The tangent line to the demand curve at point B</em> passes through the points (90, 12) and (140, 5).Then, the slope is:
- slope = rise / run = ΔP / Δq = $ (12 - 5) / (90 - 140) units
- slope = - $7 /50units = - $7/50units = - $0.14/unit.
Again, the negative sign indicates that when the number of units increase the price decreases.
Answer:
B. $ 51 per unit
Explanation:
The computation of the unit product cost using variable costing is shown below:
= Direct material per unit + direct labor per unit + variable manufacturing overhead per unit
= $7 units + $26 + $18
= $51 per unit
It recognizes only variable cost like - direct material, direct labor, and variable manufacturing cost. Hence, all other information is ignored
Answer:
Donations to charitable organizations are tax deductible.
Explanation:
The government see charitable organizations similarly as they view welfare programs , since it allocates a certain amount of wealth from the rich to the poor. This is why most countries in the world will allow charitable donations as tax deductible.
That being said, research conducted by Oxfam report actually showed that Companies actually use this rule as a loophole to escape tax payment. Their finding indicates that between 2008 -2014 alone, US corporations has use this loophole to hide around $1.4 Trillion worth of Taxes.
