Answer:
- $45000
Explanation:
Economic profit is different from accounting profit in the sense that former also takes into consideration the implicit costs, also referred to as opportunity costs unlike the latter.
Economic Profit = Accounting profit - Opportunity Costs
Opportunity costs are defined as the the cost of sacrificed or foregone alternative for pursuing a particular alternative. Such costs are implicit or notional as they are not actually incurred.
In the given case, Economic Profit = Revenues - Explicit costs - Implicit costs
Here, the implicit cost is $60,000 income foregone.
Thus, Economic Profit = $20,000(income) - $ 5000 (expense) - $60,000 (opportunity cost)
Economic Profit = ($ 45,000) or -$45,000.
Answer:
A). Decrease the money supply so interest rates rise.
Explanation:
This could be explained simply because change in money supply results in changes in price levels and/or a change in supply of goods and services. An increase in money supply results in a decrease in the value of money because an increase in money supply causes a rise in inflation. As inflation rises, the purchasing power, or the value of money, decreases.
A change in interest rates is one way to make that correspondence happen. A fall in interest rates increases the amount of money people wish to hold, while a rise in interest rates decreases that amount. A change in prices is another way to make the money supply equal the amount demanded.
Answer:
both
- United Continental with a capital expenditure of 60.68%
- Southwest Airlines with a capital expenditure of 51.38%
Explanation:
Since United Continental's purchases of Boeing planes represent over 60% of their capital expenditures, this means that Boeing had to be the primary plane supplier. Even if the company purchased planes form other manufacturer, their purchases would not even be 40% of the company's purchases.
The same applies to Southwest Airlines, even though the purchases from Boeing are a little lower, they are still over 51%. This means the company could not have spent more money on purchasing planes from another company. The maximum purchase from another airplane manufacturer would have been less than 49% at most.
Besides the previous analysis, you must also consider that the company spends money on things besides airplanes, e.g. new training facilities, equipment, computer software, other vehicles, etc.
Answer:
False.
Explanation:
The concept of "Nash equilibrium" is been by economist and also by "gamers" in game theory. Nash equilibrium is so good for making decisions and the determination of strategies.
In playing this game, the players or participants can use the pure strategy or the mixed strategy. The mixed strategy is the use of different strategies randomly.
"If a player chooses a mixed strategy in a Nash equilibrium, this implies that the payoff from using that mixed strategy is the same as the payoff from using any of the pure strategies in it".
The statement given above is FALSE because the PAYOFF WILL INCREASE IF WE ARE TO PLAY A MIXED STRATEGY.
For instance if we have a head of 1 and -1, and a tail of -1 and 1, the payoff for pure strategy is likely one or minus one but for a mixed strategy it could be zero.
I think it’s higher the risk and the lower present value
