ECO316H1 Lecture : ch16_solutions_solved edit.doc

89 views4 pages

ambersnail383

16 Apr 2012

School

Department

Course

Professor

For unlimited access to Class Notes, a Class+ subscription is required.

Document Summary

Under truthful voting, a should match geology and sociology in the first vote, with the winner (geology) to face philosophy in the second round. Under strategic voting, a should match philosophy and sociology in the first round. In order to prevent a geology outcome, b casts a strategic vote for. Allocate points in the following way: 5 for a first-place vote, 2 for a second-place vote, and 1 for a third-place vote. A then receives 5 + 5 + 1 + 1 = 12 points, b gets 2 + 2 + 5 + 2 = 11, and c gets 1 + 1 + Proposals 2 and 3 get 15 votes each. Under a plurality voting system (with truthful voting), proposal 1 gets 20 votes and (b) For both the second and third type of voter to gain, proposal 3 must win rather than.

Related Questions


40 min

Question 1.1. What do courts begin their interpretation of a clearly worded statute with?
(Points : 1)

A.	Its plain meaning

B.	Its legislative history

C.	Records of legislative debates

D.	Its different amendments

Question 2.2. On April 2, 1987, Bonn & Co., CPAs, mailed Marble Corp. a signed proposal to perform certain accounting services for Marble provided Marble accepts the proposal by April 30, 1987. Under the circumstances (Points : 1)

If Marble chooses to use the telephone to accept the offer and does so prior to April 30,1987, no contract will be formed between the parties because the mail was not used
Marble must accept the Bonn proposal in writing in order to form a contract
A contract will be formed between the parties if Marble mails an acceptance to Bonn on April 29, 1987, even if it is not received by Bonn until May 3, 1987
Bonn may not withdraw its proposal prior to May 1, 1987

Question 3.3. Which of the following is also called

burgundymuskrat285

Consider the problem of carbon dioxide emissions. We will abstract from the complexity of the problem slightly, assuming there are polluters and consumers in two regions, the OECD (O) and the rest of the world (R). Suppose the marginal cost of controlling CO₂ emissions is $13 per ton. Let the marginal willingness to pay for pollution reduction be 14 - Q for region O and 8 - 2Q for region R, where Q is the amount of pollution reduction.

The United Nations is considering two proposed methods for controlling CO2 emissions, both involving polluters paying for the damage they cause:

Proposal A involves the polluters paying damages to each region for the pollution generated.

Proposal B involves the polluters in each region independently negotiating pollution reductions with the consumers of their respective region, assuming the other region is not undertaking pollution reduction.

What is the socially efficient level of emissions reduction Q*? A graph of the marginal abatement cost and the total marginal willingness-to-pay curves would be helpful. (Hint: CO2 emission reduction is a global public good)

How much total pollution reduction will occur under Proposal A and what will be the total compensation received by regions O and R? If those payments were instead placed in the general coffers of the UN, would the outcome be any different from an efficient point of view? Why or why not?

How much pollution would be generated under Proposal B? Explain any differences between this answer and the answer to parts (a) and (b).

pinkarmadillo937

After spending Friday morning with his Financial Advisor's, Charles realized that his boss has been calling and texting him asking for the final decision to include in Monday morning presentation to the finance and accounting committee.

Three different alternatives (Flow-122, Flow-155, and Flow-264) are under consideration for improving material flow in a production process. All the alternatives are considered to have the same life of 20 years.

Based on the information provided in the following table (1);

After completing the first analysis, Charles's received a new text: "Sorry! wrong data" suppliers made a mistake and quoted wrong prices for each of the machines prepare analysis with half of the initial cost. Assuming that the initial investment data is corrected (see table 2),

Table 2. Proposal- Improving Material Flow-Revised

Proposal	Initial Investment ($)	Operating Cost, ($/year)	Annual Income ($/year)
Flow-122	-20,000	-2,000	+4,000
Flow-155	-23,000	-1,000	+5,000
Flow-264	-30,500	-500	+8,000

If the alternatives are mutually excusive, which alternative should Charles recommend using the ROR analysis is 20% per year? If the alternatives are independent, which one(s) should be selected if the company MARR is now 15%? (2pts)

mauvehippopotamus890

ECO316H1 Lecture : ch16_solutions_solved edit.doc

Document Summary

Get access

Related textbook solutions

Principles of Economics

Principles of Macroeconomics

Principles of Microeconomics

Related Documents

ECON 350 Lecture Notes - Lecture 16: Pareto Efficiency, Social Choice Theory, Approval Voting

ECON 102 Lecture Notes - Lecture 10: Voting Paradox, Plurality Voting System, Rational Ignorance

PSCI 3362 Lecture Notes - Lecture 94: Borda Count, Approval Voting, Instant-Runoff Voting

Related Questions