Business, 18.03.2020 02:17 laurencollett4838

Suppose that, in a competitive market without government regulations, the equilibrium price of hamburgers is $5 each.
1. Complete the following table by indicating whether each of the statements is an example of a price ceiling or a price floor and whether it is binding or nonbinding.
Statement:
a. The government has instituted a legal minimum price of $3 each for hamburgers
b. The government prohibits fast-food restayrants from selling hamburgers for more than $8 each.
c. Due to new regulations, fast-food restaurants that would like to pay better wages in order to hire more workers are prohibited from doing so.

Answers: 3

Show answers

Answers

Answer from: jpsaad00

1. Price floor, binding

2. Price ceiling, binding

3. Price ceiling, binding

Explanation:

Price ceiling is a government or organization limit on how high a product, commodity or service can be charged.

Price floor is a government or organization limit on how low a product, commodity or sevice can be charged.

Binding is when you are bound legally to something while non binding you are not legally bound to it.

Answer from: tatertott8592

a. Price floor; nonbinding

b. Price ceiling; nonbinding

c. Price ceiling; binding.

Explanation:

a. The government has instituted a legal minimum price of $3 each for hamburgers

This is price floor that is nonbinding.

Price floor refers to a price control in which the least price to be charged for a commodity is imposed by a government or a group. A price control will be effective and binding when it is set above the equilibrium price, but will not be effective and nonbinding when it set below the equilibrium price.

Since the price floor of $3 is lower than the equilibrium price of $5, it is nonbinding.

b. The government prohibits fast-food restaurants from selling hamburgers for more than $8 each.

This is price ceiling that is nonbinding.

A price ceiling can be described as the legal maximum price set a commodity to be sold. When a price ceiling is set below the equilibrium price, it will be effective and binding because it will cause a supply shortage. However, when a price ceiling is set above the equilibrium price, it will not be effective and nonbinding because it has no impact on the quantity supplied in the market

In this question therefore, the price ceiling of $8 is nonbinding because it is above the equilibrium price of $5.

c. Due to new regulations, fast-food restaurants that would like to pay better wages in order to hire more workers are prohibited from doing so.

This is price ceiling or maximum wage that is binding.

From the question, it can be inferred that price ceiling is set below the equilibrium wage because the fast-food restaurants are ready to pay better wages or wages that are higher than the maximum wage in order to hire more workers but they are prohibited by law. The price ceiling is effective and binding because it has caused a shortage as demand for workers is now higher than quantity of workers supplied at the maximum wage.

Answer from: Quest

Just about 23,453$ would be the answer

Answer from: Quest

Idk maybe its a glitch in the system it happens

Another question on Business

Business, 22.06.2019 03:00

Journalize the following transactions that occurred in september 2015 for aquamarines. no explanations are needed. identify each accounts payable and accounts receivable with the vendor or customer name. sep. 3 purchased merchandise inventory on account from shallin wholesalers, $5,000. terms 1/15, n/eom, fob shipping point. 4 paid freight bill of $80 on september 3 purchase. 4 purchased merchandise inventory for cash of $1,700. 6 returned $500 of inventory from september 3 purchase. 8 sold merchandise inventory to hermosa company, $6,000, on account. terms 2/15, n/35. cost of goods, $2,640. 9 purchased merchandise inventory on account from thomas wholesalers, $8,000. terms 2/10, n/30, fob destination. 10 made payment to shallin wholesalers for goods purchased on september 3, less return and discount. 12 received payment from hermosa company, less discount. 13 after negotiations, received a $200 allowance from thomas wholesalers. 15 sold merchandise inventory to jordan company, $2,500, on account. terms 1/10, n/eom. cost of goods, $1,050. 22 made payment, less allowance, to thomas wholesalers for goods purchased on september 9. 23 jordan company returned $400 of the merchandise sold on september 15. cost of goods, $160. 25 sold merchandise inventory to smithsons for $1,100 on account that cost $400. terms of 2/10, n/30 were offered, fob shipping point. as a courtesy to smithsons, $75 of freight was added to the invoice for which cash was paid by aquamarines. 26 after negotiations, granted a $100 allowance to smithsons for merchandise purchased on september 25. 29 received payment from smithsons, less allowance and discount. 30 received payment from jordan company, less return.

Answers: 2

Answer

Business, 22.06.2019 14:00

Bayside coatings company purchased waterproofing equipment on january 2, 20y4, for $190,000. the equipment was expected to have a useful life of four years and a residual value of $9,000. instructions: determine the amount of depreciation expense for the years ended december 31, 20y4, 20y5, 20y6, and 20y7, by (a) the straight-line method and (b) the double-declining-balance method. also determine the total depreciation expense for the four years by each method. depreciation expense year straight-line method double-declining-balance method 20y4 $ $ 20y5 20y6 20y7 total $

Answers: 3

Answer

Business, 22.06.2019 14:40

Increases in output and increases in the inflation rate have been linked to

Answers: 2

Answer

Business, 23.06.2019 11:20

In march 2012, the state of california started requiring that all packaging for food and drink with the additive 4-methylimidazole (4-mi) be clearly labeled with a cancer warning. because of this, both pepsi and coke changed their formula to eliminate 4-mi as an ingredient. if pepsi and coke did not change their formula, holding all else constant, what would have happened to the demand for these goods, assuming pepsi and coke were in a competitive market? a. the demand curve for both pepsi and coke would have shifted to the right, causing the price of both products to decrease and the profits for the companies to fall. b. the demand curve for pepsi and coke would have remained unchanged, but the price of both products would have decreased and the profits for the companies would have fallen. c. the demand curve for pepsi and coke would have decreased, but the prices and profits would not have changed. d. the demand curve for only one of them would change because pepsi and coke are substitutes. e. the demand curve for pepsi and coke would have shifted to the left, causing the price of both products to decrease and the profits for both companies to fall.

Answers: 3

Answer

You know the right answer?

Suppose that, in a competitive market without government regulations, the equilibrium price of hambu...

Questions