Above shows a monopoly diagram. The economic inefficiency is highlighted especially by the welfare loss to the consumer this is because between q0 and q1 the extra benefit of the unit (shown by the price) exceeds the extra cost. Therefore welfare
As stated in extract 1, it tells us that the goods we import are not made in the UK and so makes it impossible to replace the imports, therefore meaning that we still have to import goods, despite the high prices due to the low exchange rate of sterling. This is partnered with the fact that some suppliers (shown in extract 1) have agreed long term supply contract with cheaper overseas suppliers before the depreciation of the sterling and so they are now paying high prices. This may mean that these suppliers may have to increase the prices of these goods, therefore leading to cost push inflation due to trying to maintain a decent profit margin in the hope the demand for the good does not drop dramatically. However, it is stated that there still may be a large price differential with countries such as China and India, even after sterling's depreciation. On the other hand however, as stated in extract 1, line 8, volume of good imported has also increased by 16% and inflation has continued well above target.
Two disadvantages to automation are that it costs more and it is not easily changed. 6. A products margin is determined by subtracting its manufacturing cots (labor and material) from its price. Logically, higher prices and lower labor and material costs result in higher margins. Keeping in mind the customer buying criteria, how would you increase margins for a low end product?
The reason being as more of a certain good is consumed, it will begin to provide less utility to the consumer. This means that and extra $1 income would be of more worth to a low income earner than to a high income earner. This suggests that a more equal distribution of income will be beneficial to the total utility. Unfortunately, it is extremely to gain an accurate assessment of relative
As John Verdant introduces two families with similar economic conditions but completely different values, it is not difficult to find out that the family believes having more actually harms themselves (Verdant, 152-155). I believe people who are less obsessed with consumerism would have a better living standards if they were living in a society with scarce materials. However, those people who are obsessed with consumerism would be willing to conduct some unethical things in order to gain self-interested benefits. On the other hand, nowadays thrift is a way of showing a person is well-educated and money-conscious. In fact thrift is highly valued in many Asian countries’ value systems.
Relative to the perfectly competitive equilibrium, the equilibrium outcome for a market dominated by a monopsonist will be higher prices and lower levels of good demanded. c. Government intervention in perfectly competitive markets will lead producer surplus to increase at a cost to consumers surplus. d. Government intervention in perfectly competitive markets will make markets more efficient. e. When regulating a natural monopolist, the government will require the firm to charge prices equal to the perfectly competitive firms’ price. f. A Nash Equilibrium implies
For example, if buyers want to purchase more than sellers want to sell, then buyers will offer a higher price, and price increases will stop only when the price is high enough so that buyers want to purchase only that amount that is available (Johnson). In the same manner, if there is an excess of labor, the wage rate will fall until the amount that companies want to buy is equal to
Protectionism endanger a consumer’s right to choose from a wide variety of goods and services. The defense argument is that it protects higher prices, lower quality goods, economic stagnation and among other things. It is a form of purism when it comes to the trade barriers being in place. It is defended that is in place because consumers to purchasing foreign made products will cause unemployment here in America. The theory is that jobs are lost when we are tempted by cheap foreign goods.
Governments may choose to increase minimum wage on an arbitrary basis, making it difficult for companies to hire individuals at a consistent market rate. Government price controls distort the economic theory of supply and demand. Supply and demand is a significant underlying feature of free-market economies. This theory allows individuals and businesses to make decisions based on self-interest. Businesses often pay individuals a wage based on current market standards.
In the short run firms may not increase their profits because the cuts in prices but if they achieve this in long run they may experience maxim profits. However the directors try to imply polices which do not always maximize the profits their objective is to satisfy the owners by getting some profit and growing the company in order to receive bigger market share to influence prices and quantity produced. I think that the managers should firstly try to grow the company and work for normal profit and maybe in long run obtain super normal profits. In short run they try to achieve lots of other objectives regardless profit