<p>ew i screwed up parts of C yuck</p>
<p>But does it look right?????</p>
<p>Come on guys...</p>
<p>yeah yours looks fine</p>
<p>i wrote B C and E instead of 160, i didn't write a number</p>
<p>oh well.</p>
<p>hehe...
I made the same mistake you did thethoughtprocess. ***!? the whole question up to that point didn't actually ask you to calculate the area of any of the figures, and all of a sudden you have to calculate the area? I guess I need to learn to read...</p>
<p>How'd you get 160? I got 160 for something...but I can't seem to remember...Oo...ergh...Now I'm trying to remember whether I put down 160...the number seems familiar, but somehow I'm not sure whether it's from AP Econ or just some Calc review problem I did...Oo....everything's so mushed up in my head. Oo....</p>
<p>OK, originally, equilibrium price and quantity are $12, and 100 units, for a total revenue of $1200. After the tax, the equilibrium price and quantity are $13, or 80 units. This gives a new revenue for producers of $1040, so a loss of $160 has resulted. Where did this revenue go, to the government, as tax revenue.</p>
<p>i too had 6 workers.....for the same one for parts a and b did u guyz sayit was a perfectly competitive industry and a monopsony?</p>
<p>perfectly competitive....only because I self-studied Micro in less than one week and skimmed over the last...five chapters. So I may be wrong. :(</p>
<p>nah, i said it was both perfect</p>
<p>because if it was a monosony then the price would go down as demand goes up, since its not a vertical demand curve; you might be right though</p>
<p>i think? who knows. I think i did good enough on MC to compensate for other mistakes.</p>
<p>No, both are perfectly competitive. If it were a monopsony, then the company could lower wages if it wanted too. The question states that it can hire as many workers as it wants at $120. Therefore, the market wage is $120. Therefore, it is a perfectly competitive market, because if company lowers wages, then workers could go to another company, because they would all be paying a wage of $120.</p>
<p>and by vertical, i meant horizontal</p>
<p>Yea. It's perfect because the price stays constant at 20 and 120. For the industry, notice that the product price remains at 20, meaning that it's a price taker. And as the firm hires more workers, the directions say that "no matter how many workers" it hires, the wage remain at 120: in a monopsony, the firm must raise wages to hire more workers, in a perfectly competitive labor market, the wage is a price taker too in terms of the labor market, that's why it can remain constant at 120...</p>
<p>How many can I miss to get a five?</p>
<p>oh lord, we like posted at the same time (to the two posts above me).</p>
<p>did anyone take form B? any input would be helpful</p>
<p>thethought: Don't you mean that the tax revenue was B,C, and D rather than $160 (you put B,C, and E)</p>
<p>wait why are we still discussing this?</p>
<p>people you are DONE. go out and play or something :)</p>
<p>it was BCD. for the first micro question where it asked to compare the long run equilibriums, did the price stay constant in the long run?</p>
<p>Yeah. It's long run, perfectly competitive constant cost industry.</p>
<p>yeah thats what i meant, sorry</p>
<p>Heltahir - Shouldn't number 2, letter c, number 1 be $12 and not 11? i mean the buyer pays 13 dollars, and the seller loses one dollar to the tax, so wouldn't the seller be getting 12 dollars for the product?</p>
<p>no the seller sells the item for 11, the tax is a rectangle</p>