Total Posts:17|Showing Posts:1-17

 Posts: 1,258 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 9/7/2011 1:34:05 PMPosted: 5 years agoD (pd)= 200-4PS (Ps)=4PImpose a specific tax of Rs. 10. Who suffers more and why?Calculate Consumer Surplus, Producer surplus and dead weight loss.Please, just tell me how to work on this.
 Posts: 1,258 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 9/7/2011 1:34:52 PMPosted: 5 years agoEquilibrium Price =Rs. 25Equilibrium quantity= 100 units, from the equation.
 Posts: 6,924 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 9/7/2011 1:51:00 PMPosted: 5 years agoAt 9/7/2011 1:34:05 PM, gerrandesquire wrote:D (pd)= 200-4PS (Ps)=4PImpose a specific tax of Rs. 10. Who suffers more and why?Calculate Consumer Surplus, Producer surplus and dead weight loss.Please, just tell me how to work on this.Do your own Econ 101 homework.
 Posts: 11,204 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 9/7/2011 3:22:34 PMPosted: 5 years agoStarted half way through then got bored. The supply curve is going to shift right. This means the supply curve is now 4P-10, since for example \$25 price will fell like a 10 price. If you graph it out, draw a line at P1 and P2, horizontal and vertical. You'll notice a triangle between the supply curves (demand curve is one edge, the original supply curve is the second edge, the vertical line at the new price is the third edge). This is the deadweight loss. You'll also notice that the horizontal line for P2 splits up the triangle. Directly above the line is the consumer loss. Below the split is the supplier loss. You should be able to solve it from here. Just find the length of each side of the triangle, and use the basic equation to find the triangle length.Open borders debate: http://www.debate.org...
 Posts: 11,204 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 9/7/2011 3:27:59 PMPosted: 5 years agoIt's actually 4(P-10) not 4P-10.Open borders debate: http://www.debate.org...
 Posts: 11,204 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 9/7/2011 3:33:34 PMPosted: 5 years agoI just realized you could use deadweight loss to show how insane logicalfalalcies idea of labor cost theory, not that there weren't a thousand other holes in his theory.Open borders debate: http://www.debate.org...
 Posts: 176 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 9/8/2011 3:09:42 AMPosted: 5 years agoAt 9/7/2011 3:33:34 PM, darkkermit wrote:I just realized you could use deadweight loss to show how insane logicalfalalcies idea of labor cost theory, not that there weren't a thousand other holes in his theory.It is funny how the world's leading economists couldn't find holes in the theory when it was debated in the leading economics journal but you think you found the hole in this romper room economics post.Pareto efficiency, which eliminates deadweight loss, can only happen in a market with perfect competition. That will never happen on its own. What Lange demonstrated, however, was that the only way you can get perfect competition and pareto efficiency is by deliberately making the market perfectly competitive which can only be done through market socialism, not capitalism.:darkkermit [Using a dictionary] has got to be the most retarded thing i've heard
 Posts: 19,299 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 9/8/2011 4:03:09 AMPosted: 5 years agoHow exactly does giving people nothing to compete over make them compete "Perfectly?"When someone says they will create perfect competition to implement their system, that's like someone telling me their new idea for a zeppelin involves creating an ideal gas.It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.