of x

Sách Microeconomics, 7/E - Robert Pindyck, Daniel Rubinfeld

Đăng ngày | Thể loại: | Lần tải: 3 | Lần xem: 37 | Page: 116 | FileSize: 0.59 M | File type: PDF
37 lần xem

Sách Microeconomics, 7/E - Robert Pindyck, Daniel Rubinfeld. Fast food chains like McDonald’s, Burger King, and Wendy’s operate all over the United States. Therefore the market for fast food is a national market. This statement is false. People generally buy fast food within their current location and do not travel large distances across the United States just to buy a cheaper fast food meal. Given there is little potential for arbitrage between fast food restaurants that are located some distance from each other, there are likely to be multiple fast food markets across the country..... Cũng như các giáo án bài giảng khác được bạn đọc chia sẽ hoặc do sưu tầm lại và giới thiệu lại cho các bạn với mục đích học tập , chúng tôi không thu phí từ bạn đọc ,nếu phát hiện tài liệu phi phạm bản quyền hoặc vi phạm pháp luật xin thông báo cho website ,Ngoài thư viện tài liệu này, bạn có thể download bài giảng miễn phí phục vụ nghiên cứu Một ít tài liệu tải về mất font không xem được, nguyên nhân máy tính bạn không hỗ trợ font củ, bạn download các font .vntime củ về cài sẽ xem được.

https://tailieumienphi.vn/doc/sach-microeconomicsa-7-e-robert-pindycka-daniel-rubinfeld-gty1tq.html

Nội dung


Chapter 1: Preliminaries PART I INTRODUCTION: MARKETS AND PRICES CHAPTER 1 PRELIMINARIES 1 Chapter 1: Preliminaries QUESTIONS FOR REVIEW 1. It is often said that a good theory is one that can be refuted by an empirical, data- oriented study. Explain why a theory that cannot be evaluated empirically is not a good theory. There are two steps to consider when evaluating a theory: first, you should examine the reasonability of the theory’s assumptions; second, you should test the theory’s predictions by comparing them with facts. If a theory cannot be tested, it cannot be accepted or rejected. Therefore, it contributes little to our understanding of reality. 2. Which of the following two statements involves positive economic analysis and which normative? How do the two kinds of analysis differ? a. Gasoline rationing (allocating to each individual a maximum amount of gasoline that can be purchased each year) is a poor social policy because it interferes with the workings of the competitive market system. Positive economic analysis describes what is. Normative economic analysis describes what ought to be. Statement (a) merges both types of analysis. First, statement (a) makes a positive statement that gasoline rationing “interferes with the workings of the competitive market system.” We know from economic analysis that a constraint placed on supply will change the market equilibrium. Second, statement (a) makes the normative statement (i.e., a value judgment) that gasoline rationing is a “poor social policy.” Thus, statement (a) makes a normative comment based on a conclusion derived from positive economic analysis of the policy. 2 Chapter 1: Preliminaries b. Gasoline rationing is a policy under which more people are made worse off than are made better off. Statement (b) is positive because it states what the effect of gasoline rationing is without making a value judgment about the desirability of the rationing policy. 3. Suppose the price of unleaded regular octane gasoline were 20 cents per gallon higher in New Jersey than in Oklahoma. Do you think there would be an opportunity for arbitrage (i.e., that firms could buy gas in Oklahoma and then sell it at a profit in New Jersey)? Why or why not? Oklahoma and New Jersey represent separate geographic markets for gasoline because of high transportation costs. If transportation costs were zero, a price increase in New Jersey would prompt arbitrageurs to buy gasoline in Oklahoma and sell it in New Jersey. It is unlikely in this case that the 20 cents per gallon difference in costs would be high enough to create a profitable opportunity for arbitrage, given both transactions costs and transportation costs. 4. In Example 1.3, what economic forces explain why the real price of eggs has fallen while the real price of a college education has increased? How have these changes affected consumer choices? 3 Chapter 1: Preliminaries The price and quantity of goods (e.g., eggs) and services (e.g., a college education) are determined by the interaction of supply and demand. The real price of eggs fell from 1970 to 1985 because of either a reduction in demand (consumers switched to lower-cholesterol food), a reduction in production costs (improvements in egg production technology), or both. In response, the price of eggs relative to other foods decreased. The real price of a college education rose because of either an increase in demand (e.g., more people recognized the value of an education), an increase in the cost of education (e.g., increase in staff salaries), or both. 5. Suppose that the Japanese yen rises against the U.S. dollar- that is, it will take more dollars to buy any given amount of Japanese yen. Explain why this increase simultaneously increases the real price of Japanese cars for U.S. consumers and lowers the real price of U.S. automobiles for Japanese consumers. As the value of the yen grows relative to the dollar, more dollars exchange for fewer yen. Assume that the costs of production for both Japanese and U.S. automobiles remain unchanged. Then using the new exchange rate, the purchase of a Japanese automobile priced in yen requires more dollars. Similarly, the purchase of a U.S. automobile priced in dollars requires fewer yen. 6. The price of long-distance telephone service fell from 40 cents per minute in 1996 to 22 cents per minute in 1999, a 45-percent (18 cents/40 cents) decrease. The Consumer Price Index increased by 10-percent over this period. What happened to the real price of telephone service? Let the CPI for 1996 equal 1 and the CPI for 1999 equal 1.1, which reflects a 10% increase in the overall price level. To find the real price of telephone service in each period, divide the nominal price by the CPI for that year. 4 Chapter 1: Preliminaries For 1996, we have 40/1 or 40 cents, and for 1999, we have 22/1.1 or 20 cents. The real price therefore fell from 40 to 20 cents, a 50% decline. 4.13− 4.07 = 0.0147, or about 1.5%. 5 ... - tailieumienphi.vn 663026

Tài liệu liên quan


Xem thêm