In economics, Logrolling is a trading of favors. Usually this is done in legislative members in which they trades to get the favor of the other members.
For example:
I am running for a certain position, In order to get the highest vote, I will talk to the other members to vote me in exchange to their favors.
Answer:
Jenny pays Abe $300 to give the dog to his parents who live on an isolated farm
Explanation:
The answer is already stated within the question, but I'll provide the explanation.
In order to reach a solution, Jenny would have to offer Abe an amount to get rid of the dog that is more than Abe's benefit of owning the dog, which is $200.
On the other hand, since Jenny bears a cost of $400 from the bark, she would only be willing to spend as much as $400 to resolve the situation. Therefore, the acceptable range for the amount of the agreement for both parts is:
$200 < X < $400.
Since $300 is within that range. Jenny paying Abe $300 to give the dog to his parents is a possible solution.
1) Town of Bayport:
We have that the residents value the fireworks at
a total of 50+100+300=450$. That is the utility they gain. But they
would also have to pay 360$ for the fireworks. The total outcome is
450$+(-360$)=90$. Hence, the outcome is positive and the fireworks pass
the cost benefit analysis.
If the fireworks' cost is to be split
equally, we have that each of the 3 residents has to pay 360/3=120$. Let
us now do the cost-benefit analysis for everyone.
Jacques stands to gain 50$ from the fireworks but would have to pay 120$. He will vote against it.
Also, Kyoko will gain 100$ but would have to pay 120$. He will lose utility/money from this so he will vote against.
Musashi on the other hand, would gain 300$ and only pay 120$. He is largely benefitted by this measure. Only he would
We have that 2 out of the 3 would vote against the fireworks, so that the fireworks will not be bought. The vote does not yield the same answer as the benefit-cost analysis.
2) Town of River Heights:
We have that the total value of the fireworks to the community
is 20+140+160=320$. The total value of the fireworks is lower than
their cost so their cost benefit analysis yields that they should not be
bought.
However, let's see what each resident says. The cost to each resident is 360/3=120$. Rina is against the fireworks since she will only gain 20$. Sean and Yvette are for the fireworks since they gain 140$ and 160$ respectively, which are larger than the cost of the fireworks to each of them (120$). Hence, 2 will vote for the fireworks and one will vote against and fireworks will be bought.
Again, the vote clashes with the cost-benefit analysis.
3) The first choice is wrong. It is very difficult for a government to provide the exact types of public goods that everyone wants because that would be too costly; one cannot have a public good that everyone pays for so that only a couple of people enjoy it. In our example, we saw that in every case, a public good and its production would have sime supporters and some adversaries.
Majority rule is not always the most efficient way to decide public goods; as we have seen in the second case, the cost-benefit analysis yields that the fireworks are not worth it but they are approved by the majority nonetheless.
The final sentence is correct. The differing preferences of the people make a clearcut choice impossible and the government has to take into account various tradeoffs and compromises in order to determine which public goods to provide.
It can affect the company's ability to get a lending (borrow money). It can also affect the chances of finding an investor.
Answer: option E -Corporation
Explanation:
Corporation is the most effective form of business organization for raising capital
