https://conservapedia.com/api.php?action=feedcontributions&user=Kevin51292&feedformat=atomConservapedia - User contributions [en]2024-03-28T22:27:25ZUser contributionsMediaWiki 1.24.2https://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Economics&diff=147358Talk:Economics2007-05-07T15:58:52Z<p>Kevin51292: </p>
<hr />
<div>== Questions on Week 12 ==<br />
Hi Mr. Schlafly!! On question #4 of this week's homework you talk about an increase in profits with the increase of the owner's inventory. Is this increase in profit permanent or does it only last for that one year?--[[User:Kevin51292|Kevin51292]] 11:58, 7 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== Questions on Week 11 ==<br />
<br />
Question from a student:<br />
In the Honors only example in [[Economics_Lecture_Eleven]], the profit is the same for three and four employees because for the fourth employee, <br />
(P x MP)=W. <br />
<br />
With three employees, revenue is (20+18+16) x $5=$270. Cost is $70x3=$210. So profit with three employees is $60.<br />
<br />
For four employees, revenue is (20+18+16+14)x$5=$340. Cost is $70x4=$280. So profit is once again $60.<br />
<br />
Wouldn't the company prefer to hire three employees instead of four? The fourth employee increases output, but not profit. This is bad for the seller because price decreases when supply increases."<br />
<br />
Assuming your math is correct above, the price would not decrease when the supply increases '''unless this is a monopoly'''. Instead, this is a '''monopsony'''. So the company would be indifferent between three or four employees, but probably prefers four employees because he is helping more people that way and has greater protection in case an employee quits or becomes sick.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:37, 30 April 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
Mr. Schlafly, on question eight, what did you mean by "explain". What exactly did you want us to explain?<br />
<br />
Daniel N.<br />
<br />
: Simply explain your answer with a sentence or two. For example, I choose answer __ BECAUSE ....--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:40, 2 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== Questions for Midterm Exam ==<br />
<br />
students, enter questions here:<br />
<br />
Mr. Schlafly, in class last thursday you said that in prisoner dilemma it is rare for both prisoners to get off without any jail time. But if the prisoners are rational and want to minimize their jail time then neither of them will confess. Now if both of them are thinking like this then they will each assume that the other will not confess. Therefore neither of them will confess. This is off course assuming that both are rational prisoners. <br />
<br />
Daniel N.<br />
<br />
:A rational prisoner will assume his partner will rat him out, because that will reduce the snitch's jail time significantly. The idea is that parties are self-interested, and will work toward maximum individual benefit than for the shared benefit of an organization. --[[User:Thammersmith|Thammersmith]] 17:19, 17 April 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
But if neither of them confess then the jail time for both of them is zero years. If they both know that this is a possible outcome then they will try to reach that by assuming that the other will try to reach that. If one of them rats on the other than he still gets jail time, just not as much. If they are both looking for self-interest then they will both not confess because then nobody can be put in jail.<br />
<br />
Daniel N.<br />
<br />
:Daniel - I just reviewed the lecture that discussed the prisoner's dilemma. Based on the potential sentences that could be distributed in the example you have been provided, I share your concern. I found a great example of this piece of game theory on the web, which you might want to take a look at here: [http://www.princeton.edu/~mdaniels/PD/PD.html] Ultimately, the purpose of the game is to show that all actors are self-interested, and will look for an individually beneficial outcome as opposed to a mutually beneficial outcome. Think of it as an exercise as how utilitarianism doesn't always work in practice. Hope this helps. --[[User:Thammersmith|Thammersmith]] 13:44, 18 April 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:This is how I think it should be laid out. If both prisoners confess, they get 4 years each. If both do not confess, they are pinned with a smaller crime and each get 2 years. If A confesses, and B does not, the police give A a deal and he becomes a snitch, pinning the crime on B. In that scenario, A gets 1 year and B gets 5. This creates an individual motive for A to confess, although the most mutually beneficial action is for both actors to confess. Therefore - if A confesses, he either gets 4 years or 1. If A does not confess, he either gets 2 years or 5. Does this help? --[[User:Thammersmith|Thammersmith]] 13:51, 18 April 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
Daniel, I realized after class last week that the benefits in my prisoner's dilemma were not correct. So your criticism is exactly right. If the benefits for neither to confess are the best benefits available, then the [[Nash Equilibrium]] will be that neither will confess.<br />
<br />
The benefits should be such that the maximum benefit (e.g., zero time in jail) goes to the criminal who confesses (snitches) when the other defendant does not confess. That benefit scheme then causes the Nash Equilibrium to be when both confess.<br />
<br />
I'll discuss this in class tomorrow. Your criticism is right, and Thammersmith's response is right also. The mistake was mine. Maybe this week we'll rerun the "dilemma" with a different benefit scheme to see if the outcome is different.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:36, 18 April 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
Mr Schlafly, your benefits made perfect sense for the type of dilemna it was. To change it so that the nash equilibrium would come out as they both confess wouldn't make sense. Because we're assuming that the only evidence that can be aginst them is their own confession, then it would make most sense for them to get any jail time for not both not confessing.<br />
<br />
Daniel N<br />
<br />
== Questions on Week 8 Homework ==<br />
<br />
Hi Mr. Schlafly!! On question #6 It seems to me that Anthony would sell his goods at $6 to maximize his income. However, I can't seem to figure out how to calculate the social cost of selling six units at $6 each because I can't seem to figure out how to determine the output that wasn't sold because it was a monopoly. Could you please explain to me how I can find that? Thanks.--[[User:Kevin51292|Kevin51292]] 18:16, 7 April 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
Question 6 does not mention Anthony. Did you mean this question 8?<br />
<br>Question 8. Suppose Anthony owns a company having marginal costs of $5 for all his units. If he sells only one, then he reaps $11; selling two fetches a price of $10 piece; selling 3 attains a price of $9; selling four reaps $8; Q=5 would have P=$7; Q=6 has P=$6, etc. A competitive firm would have the same cost and demand numbers. What does Anthony sell at, and what is the social cost of his monopoly?<br />
<br />
Anthony would pick the output level that maximizes his profits. Perhaps you've done that. Now the harder question concerns the social cost of his monopoly. What would the price and output be in a competitive market? Perhaps some extrapolation is required on the curve. I did say "etc." Hope that helps.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:14, 7 April 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== Questions on Week 7 Homework ==<br />
students, enter questions here:<br />
<br />
Hi Mr. Schlafly. On question #7 you ask at what price you should sell dinner tickets at. However, it seems to me that there is no price where you can cover the cost of the speaker, plus the marginal cost of each person attending. Am I missing something or what? Thanks.--[[User:Kevin51292|Kevin51292]] 11:00, 29 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
: Uh oh. I just saw this now. But should pricing be based on demand rather than supply? I guess supply costs would be a factor.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:22, 5 April 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== Questions on Week 6 Homework ==<br />
<br />
Hi Mr. Schlafly!! On question #7 of this week's homework it seems a little confusing to me. The first two sentences say this. Suppose your classmate's company grew and grew, until it had 1 million employees. But then the economy had a downturn, and you faced bankruptcy. I think that you might have meant that your classmate faced bankruptcy as you have not mentioned anyone other than the classmate to that point and later to say that you are in the legislature. Is this correct that the question should read that your classmate faces bankruptcy? Thanks.--[[User:Kevin51292|Kevin51292]] 07:22, 19 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
: Right. My apologies! I meant your classmate's company faced bankruptcy.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:51, 20 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
Hi Mr. Schlafly!! Well I think I have a second question about the homework. On question #8 is the marginal product increased by putting more fertilizer on your fields? Thanks.--[[User:Kevin51292|Kevin51292]] 08:00, 20 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
: Yes.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:51, 20 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
Also in question 8, what exactly is meant by "ever-increasing marginal product."? Can an infinite amount of food be grown on a single acre given an infinite amount of fertilizer, or is the marginal product of the fertilizer increased when it is spread out over a larger area? Thanks<br />
<br />
: "Ever-increasing marginal product", if extrapolated to infinity, means that an infinite amount of food could be grown given an infinite amount of fertilizer. It doesn't need more area. A bit unrealistic, I realize.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:15, 20 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
In question 5, is it correct to assume to that "editor" refers to members of the general public who use this sight, and not only to site administrators? Thanks.<br />
<br />
: "Editors" on these wiki sites means the contributors (and uses) of information. So the answer to your question is "yes".--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:53, 20 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== Questions on Week 5 Homework ==<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
== Questions on Week 4 Homework ==<br />
<br />
Hi Mr. Schlafly!! On question #3 of this week's homework you talk about an increase of 90% when the original number is 4 units of utility. Am I right to assume that the 90% increase is really 190% of the original number (4)? Thanks. [[User:kevin51292]]<br />
<br />
:'''REPLY TO HOMEWORK QUESTION:''' No, Kevin, that's not correct. There is declining marginal utility. The first hour the benefit is 4 units, but the second hour the benefit must be less: 90% times 4.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:41, 5 March 2007 (EST)<br />
<br />
(add more questions here)<br />
<br />
Mr. Schlafly, in question number 7, what is political bias?<br />
<br />
Daniel<br />
<br />
:Daniel, question 7 says: "Do you think a Giffen good really exists? Can you see any possible political bias in the claim that Giffen goods exist? Your views, please."<br />
<br />
:By "political bias," I mean bias motivated by a political belief or goal. For example, "scientists say there is global warming" may be motivated by a "political bias" of the scientists wanting more government control over business, under the guise of preventing global warming. As an other example, the (false) claim that "gun control would save lives" reflects a "political bias" to take guns away from lawful citizens and require them to rely more on government rather than self-defense.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:52, 7 March 2007 (EST)<br />
<br />
Hi Mr. Schlafly!! In question #8 you say prove the Law of Demand, I assume that means that I am to prove why the Law of Demand states that I should buy more of the milk when I'm only considering marginal utility. Is this correct?--[[User:Kevin51292|Kevin51292]] 17:05, 7 March 2007 (EST)<br />
<br />
: Right. Hint: you may use the law of equiproportional marginal benefit (MUa/Pa=MUb/Pb=MUc/Pc). --[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:09, 7 March 2007 (EST)<br />
<br />
== Questions on Prior Weeks' Homework: ==<br />
<br />
Question two in [[Economics Lecture Two|assignment two]] says: "Suppose the price demand curve is P=$20-Q, where P is price and Q is quantity. Also suppose the price supply curve is P=$4 Q. At what price and quantity will the good be sold?" The [[Economics Lecture Two|lecture]] does not address how to work with these equations. Are we supposed to graph them using the price as the slope and Q as the y intercept? ~ [[User:SharonS|SharonS]] 17:55, 16 February 2007 (EST)<br />
<br />
:Sharon, we can expect the good to be sold where supply equals demand. If supply were greater than demand, then the price would be lowered to sell the surplus. If supply were less than demand, then the price would be raised to increase profits.<br />
<br />
:You can find where supply equals demand either by graphing the supply and demand curves and seeing where they intersect, or by solving the two equations to find the common values of P and Q through use of algebra.<br />
<br />
:Hope that helps!--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:29, 16 February 2007 (EST)<br />
<br />
:P.S. Just as in class and in the [[Economics Lecture Two|lecture]], '''P (price) is graphed using the y-axis, and Q (quantity) is graphed using the x-axis'''. --[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:49, 17 February 2007 (EST)<br />
<br />
:Thank you! I didn't think of finding the common values of P and Q using algebra. Solving the equations with algebra gives the answers for P and Q in dollars. Should I just take the dollar sign off the number I get for Q and treat that as the quantity sold? ~ [[User:SharonS|SharonS]] 10:30, 17 February 2007 (EST)<br />
<br />
::Yes, just remove the dollar sign. There is always a mismatch in units in graphing Price (in dollars) as a function of Quantity (a non-dollar variable)--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:37, 17 February 2007 (EST).<br />
<br />
I am a bit confused with problem four in [[Economics Lecture Two|assignment two]]. The question reads:<br />
:"Suppose 1000 persons in a town each have the following weekly demands for gas, and the gas stations have the following weekly supplies:<br />
<br />
:Gallons Demand Price/gallon Supply Price/gallon<br />
:10 $2.50 $.50<br />
:20 $2 $.75<br />
:30 $1 $1<br />
:40 $.75 $1.50<br />
<br />
:(A) What is the price and overall quantity of gas sold each week?<br />
:(B) Suppose Congress declares war and imposes a price control of $.75 per gallon. At what price and overall quantity will gas sell each week?"<br />
<br />
I don't understand what is meant by the first sentence. Do a thousand people need ten gallons, a thousand need 20 gallons and so on, or are there only a thousand people, roughly a quarter of which will need each quantity? ~ [[User:SharonS|SharonS]] 13:15, 19 February 2007 (EST)<br />
<br />
:REPLY: Good question, Sharon. "Suppose 1000 persons in a town '''each''' have the following weekly demands for gas ..." means "'''each'''" person has the expressed demand (and likewise, the supply is for each). As always, the key is to find where supply meets demand, or where the supply and demand curves intersect.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:25, 19 February 2007 (EST)<br />
<br />
:Thank you! I think I've got it now.<font color=green> ~ [[User:SharonS|SharonS]] 16:54, 19 February 2007 (EST)</font><br />
<br />
Hi Mr. Schlafly!! On the homework for this week on question #2 you ask at what quantity the goods will be sold at on the curve. How do you label the quantity? I know with the price you would obviously label it as dollars, but do you do the same for quantity? Thanks. -User:kevin51292<br />
<br />
:REPLY: Great question, Kevin. "Quantity" is expressed in the units of goods specified (e.g., gallons, pairs of shoes, candy bars, etc.). Where, as in question 2, no goods are specified, then you could simply say "units".--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:14, 20 February 2007 (EST)<br />
<br />
Hi Mr. Schlafly!! Thanks for the above answer, that really clarifies things. As I am doing my homework I came across another question that I had. On question #6, are you looking for the price at which the strangers want to buy all the tickets that the scalpers offer, or are you looking for the highest common price at which tickets could be sold? Because there are multiple common prices that would result in tickets being sold (anything ranging from $8 to $15). [[User:kevin51292]]<br />
<br />
Kevin, assume that a common price (a "market price") is used for all sales.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:38, 20 February 2007 (EST)<br />
<br />
== Prior discussion unrelated to homework ==<br />
<br />
:1) How does economic theory explain why anyone ever gives anything but money as a gift?<br />
<br />
:If someone gives me (say) ''The New Annotated Sherlock Holmes: The Complete Short Stories'' I might be pleased, but if someone gave me $95 I could ''buy'' ''The New Annotated Sherlock Holmes: The Complete Short Stories,'' in which case I would be just as pleased. Or, I might use the money to buy something different which I liked better. Or, I might know of a place to buy it at a discount, in which case I could have my book and extra money, too.<br />
<br />
:If someone gives me money, the ''worst case'' is that I do not know of anything that would please me more than the intended gift. In every other case, I can do better with the money than with the gift. Therefore, it would seem that the economist's "rational man" would always prefer to give and receive the money. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 15:51, 8 February 2007 (EST)<br />
<br />
<br />
The "rational man" is not merely interesdted in money but in total utility (the economic term for overall satisfaction); he might get more utility by reciving a gift that he knows was specially chosen for him by the giver than from a cash gift that has no personal meaning. Likewise he would get utility from giving a meaningful gift. In fact, if it ''were'' simply about money the "rational man" probably would not be giving at all!<br />
<br />
--[[User:BenjaminS|BenjaminS]] 12:38, 9 February 2007 (EST)<br />
<br />
Good point Ben. Also, remember that money really has no inherent value- it must be exchanged before it is useful to anyone except perhaps a coin collector. Thus, by giving someone a useful item as a gift rather than money, you are sparing the receiver of the gift the transaction costs involved in exchanging money for that item. So if we assume (1) that the giver knows what gift the reciever wants, (2) that the reciever would consider it a chore to take the neccesary steps to obtain the gift, and (3) that the giver will not mind, or perhaps even enjoy, taking those same steps, then the traditional mode of gift giving becomes economically rational. <br />
-Chris J<br />
<br />
:2) Consider a company whose stock pays no dividends, and whose management's states that their intention is not to pay them in the future. The present value of a future stream of zero dividends is zero. How does economic theory explain why people are willing to buy such stock? [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 16:39, 8 February 2007 (EST)<br />
<br />
There are two scenario's that come to mind. The straightforward explanation is that the firm is a charitable organization, and the investors by stock in view of the beneficial effect the firm has on their community. The second explanation is that the economic activity of the aforementioned firm is beneficial to the investor. For example, small business owners in a certain town might be willing to invest in a ski-mountain, golf resort, amusement park etc. moving in their town even if it were not directly profitable, if it would attract tourists and increase the demand for their own goods and services.<br />
-Chris J<br />
<br />
::Well, that wasn't all that hypothetical an example. Many stocks pay no dividends. For example, that described Digital Equipment Corporation for at least three decades; it was no charity; and investors were willing to pay quite a lot of money for Digital shares. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 21:05, 16 February 2007 (EST)<br />
<br />
::The stock gets it's value from the total value of the company divided by the number of outstanding shares. Dividends are the profits made by a company that are not reinvested in the company as retained earnings. The only way to take money out of a company is to pay all the shareholders proportionally. So if the company were sold for cash for example, each shareholder would get a portion of the sale in proportion to how many shares they have. By leaving the profits in the company the value of the company increases, increasing the value of the stock. The stock price and company value match up because of two forces acting on the stock price: 1) If the stock price is lower than the value of the company then someone could buy enough of the stock to sell the company for cash and make more than he paid for the stock. 2) If the stock price his higher than the value of the company, then the market demand for the stock decreases because you wont be able to get that amount of money out of the company and the price drops accordingly.</div>Kevin51292https://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Economics&diff=91954Talk:Economics2007-04-07T22:16:06Z<p>Kevin51292: /* Questions on Week 8 Homework */</p>
<hr />
<div>== Questions on Week 8 Homework ==<br />
students, enter questions here:<br />
<br />
Hi Mr. Schlafly!! On question #6 It seems to me that Anthony would sell his goods at $6 to maximize his income. However, I can't seem to figure out how to calculate the social cost of selling six units at $6 each because I can't seem to figure out how to determine the output that wasn't sold because it was a monopoly. Could you please explain to me how I can find that? Thanks.--[[User:Kevin51292|Kevin51292]] 18:16, 7 April 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== Questions on Week 7 Homework ==<br />
students, enter questions here:<br />
<br />
Hi Mr. Schlafly. On question #7 you ask at what price you should sell dinner tickets at. However, it seems to me that there is no price where you can cover the cost of the speaker, plus the marginal cost of each person attending. Am I missing something or what? Thanks.--[[User:Kevin51292|Kevin51292]] 11:00, 29 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
: Uh oh. I just saw this now. But should pricing be based on demand rather than supply? I guess supply costs would be a factor.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:22, 5 April 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== Questions on Week 6 Homework ==<br />
<br />
Hi Mr. Schlafly!! On question #7 of this week's homework it seems a little confusing to me. The first two sentences say this. Suppose your classmate's company grew and grew, until it had 1 million employees. But then the economy had a downturn, and you faced bankruptcy. I think that you might have meant that your classmate faced bankruptcy as you have not mentioned anyone other than the classmate to that point and later to say that you are in the legislature. Is this correct that the question should read that your classmate faces bankruptcy? Thanks.--[[User:Kevin51292|Kevin51292]] 07:22, 19 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
: Right. My apologies! I meant your classmate's company faced bankruptcy.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:51, 20 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
Hi Mr. Schlafly!! Well I think I have a second question about the homework. On question #8 is the marginal product increased by putting more fertilizer on your fields? Thanks.--[[User:Kevin51292|Kevin51292]] 08:00, 20 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
: Yes.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:51, 20 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
Also in question 8, what exactly is meant by "ever-increasing marginal product."? Can an infinite amount of food be grown on a single acre given an infinite amount of fertilizer, or is the marginal product of the fertilizer increased when it is spread out over a larger area? Thanks<br />
<br />
: "Ever-increasing marginal product", if extrapolated to infinity, means that an infinite amount of food could be grown given an infinite amount of fertilizer. It doesn't need more area. A bit unrealistic, I realize.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:15, 20 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
In question 5, is it correct to assume to that "editor" refers to members of the general public who use this sight, and not only to site administrators? Thanks.<br />
<br />
: "Editors" on these wiki sites means the contributors (and uses) of information. So the answer to your question is "yes".--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:53, 20 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== Questions on Week 5 Homework ==<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
== Questions on Week 4 Homework ==<br />
<br />
Hi Mr. Schlafly!! On question #3 of this week's homework you talk about an increase of 90% when the original number is 4 units of utility. Am I right to assume that the 90% increase is really 190% of the original number (4)? Thanks. [[User:kevin51292]]<br />
<br />
:'''REPLY TO HOMEWORK QUESTION:''' No, Kevin, that's not correct. There is declining marginal utility. The first hour the benefit is 4 units, but the second hour the benefit must be less: 90% times 4.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:41, 5 March 2007 (EST)<br />
<br />
(add more questions here)<br />
<br />
Mr. Schlafly, in question number 7, what is political bias?<br />
<br />
Daniel<br />
<br />
:Daniel, question 7 says: "Do you think a Giffen good really exists? Can you see any possible political bias in the claim that Giffen goods exist? Your views, please."<br />
<br />
:By "political bias," I mean bias motivated by a political belief or goal. For example, "scientists say there is global warming" may be motivated by a "political bias" of the scientists wanting more government control over business, under the guise of preventing global warming. As an other example, the (false) claim that "gun control would save lives" reflects a "political bias" to take guns away from lawful citizens and require them to rely more on government rather than self-defense.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:52, 7 March 2007 (EST)<br />
<br />
Hi Mr. Schlafly!! In question #8 you say prove the Law of Demand, I assume that means that I am to prove why the Law of Demand states that I should buy more of the milk when I'm only considering marginal utility. Is this correct?--[[User:Kevin51292|Kevin51292]] 17:05, 7 March 2007 (EST)<br />
<br />
: Right. Hint: you may use the law of equiproportional marginal benefit (MUa/Pa=MUb/Pb=MUc/Pc). --[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:09, 7 March 2007 (EST)<br />
<br />
== Questions on Prior Weeks' Homework: ==<br />
<br />
Question two in [[Economics Lecture Two|assignment two]] says: "Suppose the price demand curve is P=$20-Q, where P is price and Q is quantity. Also suppose the price supply curve is P=$4+Q. At what price and quantity will the good be sold?" The [[Economics Lecture Two|lecture]] does not address how to work with these equations. Are we supposed to graph them using the price as the slope and Q as the y intercept? ~ [[User:SharonS|SharonS]] 17:55, 16 February 2007 (EST)<br />
<br />
:Sharon, we can expect the good to be sold where supply equals demand. If supply were greater than demand, then the price would be lowered to sell the surplus. If supply were less than demand, then the price would be raised to increase profits.<br />
<br />
:You can find where supply equals demand either by graphing the supply and demand curves and seeing where they intersect, or by solving the two equations to find the common values of P and Q through use of algebra.<br />
<br />
:Hope that helps!--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:29, 16 February 2007 (EST)<br />
<br />
:P.S. Just as in class and in the [[Economics Lecture Two|lecture]], '''P (price) is graphed using the y-axis, and Q (quantity) is graphed using the x-axis'''. --[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:49, 17 February 2007 (EST)<br />
<br />
:Thank you! I didn't think of finding the common values of P and Q using algebra. Solving the equations with algebra gives the answers for P and Q in dollars. Should I just take the dollar sign off the number I get for Q and treat that as the quantity sold? ~ [[User:SharonS|SharonS]] 10:30, 17 February 2007 (EST)<br />
<br />
::Yes, just remove the dollar sign. There is always a mismatch in units in graphing Price (in dollars) as a function of Quantity (a non-dollar variable)--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:37, 17 February 2007 (EST).<br />
<br />
I am a bit confused with problem four in [[Economics Lecture Two|assignment two]]. The question reads:<br />
:"Suppose 1000 persons in a town each have the following weekly demands for gas, and the gas stations have the following weekly supplies:<br />
<br />
:Gallons Demand Price/gallon Supply Price/gallon<br />
:10 $2.50 $.50<br />
:20 $2 $.75<br />
:30 $1 $1<br />
:40 $.75 $1.50<br />
<br />
:(A) What is the price and overall quantity of gas sold each week?<br />
:(B) Suppose Congress declares war and imposes a price control of $.75 per gallon. At what price and overall quantity will gas sell each week?"<br />
<br />
I don't understand what is meant by the first sentence. Do a thousand people need ten gallons, a thousand need 20 gallons and so on, or are there only a thousand people, roughly a quarter of which will need each quantity? ~ [[User:SharonS|SharonS]] 13:15, 19 February 2007 (EST)<br />
<br />
:REPLY: Good question, Sharon. "Suppose 1000 persons in a town '''each''' have the following weekly demands for gas ..." means "'''each'''" person has the expressed demand (and likewise, the supply is for each). As always, the key is to find where supply meets demand, or where the supply and demand curves intersect.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:25, 19 February 2007 (EST)<br />
<br />
:Thank you! I think I've got it now.<font color=green> ~ [[User:SharonS|SharonS]] 16:54, 19 February 2007 (EST)</font><br />
<br />
Hi Mr. Schlafly!! On the homework for this week on question #2 you ask at what quantity the goods will be sold at on the curve. How do you label the quantity? I know with the price you would obviously label it as dollars, but do you do the same for quantity? Thanks. -User:kevin51292<br />
<br />
:REPLY: Great question, Kevin. "Quantity" is expressed in the units of goods specified (e.g., gallons, pairs of shoes, candy bars, etc.). Where, as in question 2, no goods are specified, then you could simply say "units".--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:14, 20 February 2007 (EST)<br />
<br />
Hi Mr. Schlafly!! Thanks for the above answer, that really clarifies things. As I am doing my homework I came across another question that I had. On question #6, are you looking for the price at which the strangers want to buy all the tickets that the scalpers offer, or are you looking for the highest common price at which tickets could be sold? Because there are multiple common prices that would result in tickets being sold (anything ranging from $8 to $15). [[User:kevin51292]]<br />
<br />
Kevin, assume that a common price (a "market price") is used for all sales.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:38, 20 February 2007 (EST)<br />
<br />
== Prior discussion unrelated to homework ==<br />
<br />
:1) How does economic theory explain why anyone ever gives anything but money as a gift?<br />
<br />
:If someone gives me (say) ''The New Annotated Sherlock Holmes: The Complete Short Stories'' I might be pleased, but if someone gave me $95 I could ''buy'' ''The New Annotated Sherlock Holmes: The Complete Short Stories,'' in which case I would be just as pleased. Or, I might use the money to buy something different which I liked better. Or, I might know of a place to buy it at a discount, in which case I could have my book and extra money, too.<br />
<br />
:If someone gives me money, the ''worst case'' is that I do not know of anything that would please me more than the intended gift. In every other case, I can do better with the money than with the gift. Therefore, it would seem that the economist's "rational man" would always prefer to give and receive the money. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 15:51, 8 February 2007 (EST)<br />
<br />
<br />
The "rational man" is not merely interesdted in money but in total utility (the economic term for overall satisfaction); he might get more utility by reciving a gift that he knows was specially chosen for him by the giver than from a cash gift that has no personal meaning. Likewise he would get utility from giving a meaningful gift. In fact, if it ''were'' simply about money the "rational man" probably would not be giving at all!<br />
<br />
--[[User:BenjaminS|BenjaminS]] 12:38, 9 February 2007 (EST)<br />
<br />
Good point Ben. Also, remember that money really has no inherent value- it must be exchanged before it is useful to anyone except perhaps a coin collector. Thus, by giving someone a useful item as a gift rather than money, you are sparing the receiver of the gift the transaction costs involved in exchanging money for that item. So if we assume (1) that the giver knows what gift the reciever wants, (2) that the reciever would consider it a chore to take the neccesary steps to obtain the gift, and (3) that the giver will not mind, or perhaps even enjoy, taking those same steps, then the traditional mode of gift giving becomes economically rational. <br />
-Chris J<br />
<br />
:2) Consider a company whose stock pays no dividends, and whose management's states that their intention is not to pay them in the future. The present value of a future stream of zero dividends is zero. How does economic theory explain why people are willing to buy such stock? [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 16:39, 8 February 2007 (EST)<br />
<br />
There are two scenario's that come to mind. The straightforward explanation is that the firm is a charitable organization, and the investors by stock in view of the beneficial effect the firm has on their community. The second explanation is that the economic activity of the aforementioned firm is beneficial to the investor. For example, small business owners in a certain town might be willing to invest in a ski-mountain, golf resort, amusement park etc. moving in their town even if it were not directly profitable, if it would attract tourists and increase the demand for their own goods and services.<br />
-Chris J<br />
<br />
::Well, that wasn't all that hypothetical an example. Many stocks pay no dividends. For example, that described Digital Equipment Corporation for at least three decades; it was no charity; and investors were willing to pay quite a lot of money for Digital shares. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 21:05, 16 February 2007 (EST)<br />
<br />
::The stock gets it's value from the total value of the company divided by the number of outstanding shares. Dividends are the profits made by a company that are not reinvested in the company as retained earnings. The only way to take money out of a company is to pay all the shareholders proportionally. So if the company were sold for cash for example, each shareholder would get a portion of the sale in proportion to how many shares they have. By leaving the profits in the company the value of the company increases, increasing the value of the stock. The stock price and company value match up because of two forces acting on the stock price: 1) If the stock price is lower than the value of the company then someone could buy enough of the stock to sell the company for cash and make more than he paid for the stock. 2) If the stock price his higher than the value of the company, then the market demand for the stock decreases because you wont be able to get that amount of money out of the company and the price drops accordingly.</div>Kevin51292https://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Economics&diff=72481Talk:Economics2007-03-29T15:00:40Z<p>Kevin51292: /* Questions on Week 7 Homework */</p>
<hr />
<div>== Questions on Week 7 Homework ==<br />
students, enter questions here:<br />
<br />
Hi Mr. Schlafly. On question #7 you ask at what price you should sell dinner tickets at. However, it seems to me that there is no price where you can cover the cost of the speaker, plus the marginal cost of each person attending. Am I missing something or what? Thanks.--[[User:Kevin51292|Kevin51292]] 11:00, 29 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== Questions on Week 6 Homework ==<br />
<br />
Hi Mr. Schlafly!! On question #7 of this week's homework it seems a little confusing to me. The first two sentences say this. Suppose your classmate's company grew and grew, until it had 1 million employees. But then the economy had a downturn, and you faced bankruptcy. I think that you might have meant that your classmate faced bankruptcy as you have not mentioned anyone other than the classmate to that point and later to say that you are in the legislature. Is this correct that the question should read that your classmate faces bankruptcy? Thanks.--[[User:Kevin51292|Kevin51292]] 07:22, 19 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
: Right. My apologies! I meant your classmate's company faced bankruptcy.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:51, 20 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
Hi Mr. Schlafly!! Well I think I have a second question about the homework. On question #8 is the marginal product increased by putting more fertilizer on your fields? Thanks.--[[User:Kevin51292|Kevin51292]] 08:00, 20 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
: Yes.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:51, 20 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
Also in question 8, what exactly is meant by "ever-increasing marginal product."? Can an infinite amount of food be grown on a single acre given an infinite amount of fertilizer, or is the marginal product of the fertilizer increased when it is spread out over a larger area? Thanks<br />
<br />
: "Ever-increasing marginal product", if extrapolated to infinity, means that an infinite amount of food could be grown given an infinite amount of fertilizer. It doesn't need more area. A bit unrealistic, I realize.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:15, 20 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
In question 5, is it correct to assume to that "editor" refers to members of the general public who use this sight, and not only to site administrators? Thanks.<br />
<br />
: "Editors" on these wiki sites means the contributors (and uses) of information. So the answer to your question is "yes".--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:53, 20 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== Questions on Week 5 Homework ==<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
== Questions on Week 4 Homework ==<br />
<br />
Hi Mr. Schlafly!! On question #3 of this week's homework you talk about an increase of 90% when the original number is 4 units of utility. Am I right to assume that the 90% increase is really 190% of the original number (4)? Thanks. [[User:kevin51292]]<br />
<br />
:'''REPLY TO HOMEWORK QUESTION:''' No, Kevin, that's not correct. There is declining marginal utility. The first hour the benefit is 4 units, but the second hour the benefit must be less: 90% times 4.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:41, 5 March 2007 (EST)<br />
<br />
(add more questions here)<br />
<br />
Mr. Schlafly, in question number 7, what is political bias?<br />
<br />
Daniel<br />
<br />
:Daniel, question 7 says: "Do you think a Giffen good really exists? Can you see any possible political bias in the claim that Giffen goods exist? Your views, please."<br />
<br />
:By "political bias," I mean bias motivated by a political belief or goal. For example, "scientists say there is global warming" may be motivated by a "political bias" of the scientists wanting more government control over business, under the guise of preventing global warming. As an other example, the (false) claim that "gun control would save lives" reflects a "political bias" to take guns away from lawful citizens and require them to rely more on government rather than self-defense.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:52, 7 March 2007 (EST)<br />
<br />
Hi Mr. Schlafly!! In question #8 you say prove the Law of Demand, I assume that means that I am to prove why the Law of Demand states that I should buy more of the milk when I'm only considering marginal utility. Is this correct?--[[User:Kevin51292|Kevin51292]] 17:05, 7 March 2007 (EST)<br />
<br />
: Right. Hint: you may use the law of equiproportional marginal benefit (MUa/Pa=MUb/Pb=MUc/Pc). --[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:09, 7 March 2007 (EST)<br />
<br />
== Questions on Prior Weeks' Homework: ==<br />
<br />
Question two in [[Economics Lecture Two|assignment two]] says: "Suppose the price demand curve is P=$20-Q, where P is price and Q is quantity. Also suppose the price supply curve is P=$4+Q. At what price and quantity will the good be sold?" The [[Economics Lecture Two|lecture]] does not address how to work with these equations. Are we supposed to graph them using the price as the slope and Q as the y intercept? ~ [[User:SharonS|SharonS]] 17:55, 16 February 2007 (EST)<br />
<br />
:Sharon, we can expect the good to be sold where supply equals demand. If supply were greater than demand, then the price would be lowered to sell the surplus. If supply were less than demand, then the price would be raised to increase profits.<br />
<br />
:You can find where supply equals demand either by graphing the supply and demand curves and seeing where they intersect, or by solving the two equations to find the common values of P and Q through use of algebra.<br />
<br />
:Hope that helps!--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:29, 16 February 2007 (EST)<br />
<br />
:P.S. Just as in class and in the [[Economics Lecture Two|lecture]], '''P (price) is graphed using the y-axis, and Q (quantity) is graphed using the x-axis'''. --[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:49, 17 February 2007 (EST)<br />
<br />
:Thank you! I didn't think of finding the common values of P and Q using algebra. Solving the equations with algebra gives the answers for P and Q in dollars. Should I just take the dollar sign off the number I get for Q and treat that as the quantity sold? ~ [[User:SharonS|SharonS]] 10:30, 17 February 2007 (EST)<br />
<br />
::Yes, just remove the dollar sign. There is always a mismatch in units in graphing Price (in dollars) as a function of Quantity (a non-dollar variable)--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:37, 17 February 2007 (EST).<br />
<br />
I am a bit confused with problem four in [[Economics Lecture Two|assignment two]]. The question reads:<br />
:"Suppose 1000 persons in a town each have the following weekly demands for gas, and the gas stations have the following weekly supplies:<br />
<br />
:Gallons Demand Price/gallon Supply Price/gallon<br />
:10 $2.50 $.50<br />
:20 $2 $.75<br />
:30 $1 $1<br />
:40 $.75 $1.50<br />
<br />
:(A) What is the price and overall quantity of gas sold each week?<br />
:(B) Suppose Congress declares war and imposes a price control of $.75 per gallon. At what price and overall quantity will gas sell each week?"<br />
<br />
I don't understand what is meant by the first sentence. Do a thousand people need ten gallons, a thousand need 20 gallons and so on, or are there only a thousand people, roughly a quarter of which will need each quantity? ~ [[User:SharonS|SharonS]] 13:15, 19 February 2007 (EST)<br />
<br />
:REPLY: Good question, Sharon. "Suppose 1000 persons in a town '''each''' have the following weekly demands for gas ..." means "'''each'''" person has the expressed demand (and likewise, the supply is for each). As always, the key is to find where supply meets demand, or where the supply and demand curves intersect.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:25, 19 February 2007 (EST)<br />
<br />
:Thank you! I think I've got it now.<font color=green> ~ [[User:SharonS|SharonS]] 16:54, 19 February 2007 (EST)</font><br />
<br />
Hi Mr. Schlafly!! On the homework for this week on question #2 you ask at what quantity the goods will be sold at on the curve. How do you label the quantity? I know with the price you would obviously label it as dollars, but do you do the same for quantity? Thanks. -User:kevin51292<br />
<br />
:REPLY: Great question, Kevin. "Quantity" is expressed in the units of goods specified (e.g., gallons, pairs of shoes, candy bars, etc.). Where, as in question 2, no goods are specified, then you could simply say "units".--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:14, 20 February 2007 (EST)<br />
<br />
Hi Mr. Schlafly!! Thanks for the above answer, that really clarifies things. As I am doing my homework I came across another question that I had. On question #6, are you looking for the price at which the strangers want to buy all the tickets that the scalpers offer, or are you looking for the highest common price at which tickets could be sold? Because there are multiple common prices that would result in tickets being sold (anything ranging from $8 to $15). [[User:kevin51292]]<br />
<br />
Kevin, assume that a common price (a "market price") is used for all sales.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:38, 20 February 2007 (EST)<br />
<br />
== Prior discussion unrelated to homework ==<br />
<br />
:1) How does economic theory explain why anyone ever gives anything but money as a gift?<br />
<br />
:If someone gives me (say) ''The New Annotated Sherlock Holmes: The Complete Short Stories'' I might be pleased, but if someone gave me $95 I could ''buy'' ''The New Annotated Sherlock Holmes: The Complete Short Stories,'' in which case I would be just as pleased. Or, I might use the money to buy something different which I liked better. Or, I might know of a place to buy it at a discount, in which case I could have my book and extra money, too.<br />
<br />
:If someone gives me money, the ''worst case'' is that I do not know of anything that would please me more than the intended gift. In every other case, I can do better with the money than with the gift. Therefore, it would seem that the economist's "rational man" would always prefer to give and receive the money. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 15:51, 8 February 2007 (EST)<br />
<br />
<br />
The "rational man" is not merely interesdted in money but in total utility (the economic term for overall satisfaction); he might get more utility by reciving a gift that he knows was specially chosen for him by the giver than from a cash gift that has no personal meaning. Likewise he would get utility from giving a meaningful gift. In fact, if it ''were'' simply about money the "rational man" probably would not be giving at all!<br />
<br />
--[[User:BenjaminS|BenjaminS]] 12:38, 9 February 2007 (EST)<br />
<br />
Good point Ben. Also, remember that money really has no inherent value- it must be exchanged before it is useful to anyone except perhaps a coin collector. Thus, by giving someone a useful item as a gift rather than money, you are sparing the receiver of the gift the transaction costs involved in exchanging money for that item. So if we assume (1) that the giver knows what gift the reciever wants, (2) that the reciever would consider it a chore to take the neccesary steps to obtain the gift, and (3) that the giver will not mind, or perhaps even enjoy, taking those same steps, then the traditional mode of gift giving becomes economically rational. <br />
-Chris J<br />
<br />
:2) Consider a company whose stock pays no dividends, and whose management's states that their intention is not to pay them in the future. The present value of a future stream of zero dividends is zero. How does economic theory explain why people are willing to buy such stock? [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 16:39, 8 February 2007 (EST)<br />
<br />
There are two scenario's that come to mind. The straightforward explanation is that the firm is a charitable organization, and the investors by stock in view of the beneficial effect the firm has on their community. The second explanation is that the economic activity of the aforementioned firm is beneficial to the investor. For example, small business owners in a certain town might be willing to invest in a ski-mountain, golf resort, amusement park etc. moving in their town even if it were not directly profitable, if it would attract tourists and increase the demand for their own goods and services.<br />
-Chris J<br />
<br />
::Well, that wasn't all that hypothetical an example. Many stocks pay no dividends. For example, that described Digital Equipment Corporation for at least three decades; it was no charity; and investors were willing to pay quite a lot of money for Digital shares. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 21:05, 16 February 2007 (EST)<br />
<br />
::The stock gets it's value from the total value of the company divided by the number of outstanding shares. Dividends are the profits made by a company that are not reinvested in the company as retained earnings. The only way to take money out of a company is to pay all the shareholders proportionally. So if the company were sold for cash for example, each shareholder would get a portion of the sale in proportion to how many shares they have. By leaving the profits in the company the value of the company increases, increasing the value of the stock. The stock price and company value match up because of two forces acting on the stock price: 1) If the stock price is lower than the value of the company then someone could buy enough of the stock to sell the company for cash and make more than he paid for the stock. 2) If the stock price his higher than the value of the company, then the market demand for the stock decreases because you wont be able to get that amount of money out of the company and the price drops accordingly.</div>Kevin51292https://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Economics&diff=51078Talk:Economics2007-03-20T12:00:45Z<p>Kevin51292: /* Questions on Week 6 Homework */</p>
<hr />
<div>== Questions on Week 6 Homework ==<br />
<br />
Hi Mr. Schlafly!! On question #7 of this week's homework it seems a little confusing to me. The first two sentences say this. Suppose your classmate's company grew and grew, until it had 1 million employees. But then the economy had a downturn, and you faced bankruptcy. I think that you might have meant that your classmate faced bankruptcy as you have not mentioned anyone other than the classmate to that point and later to say that you are in the legislature. Is this correct that the question should read that your classmate faces bankruptcy? Thanks.--[[User:Kevin51292|Kevin51292]] 07:22, 19 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
Hi Mr. Schlafly!! Well I think I have a second question about the homework. On question #8 is the marginal product increased by putting more fertilizer on your fields? Thanks.--[[User:Kevin51292|Kevin51292]] 08:00, 20 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== Questions on Week 5 Homework ==<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
== Questions on Week 4 Homework ==<br />
<br />
Hi Mr. Schlafly!! On question #3 of this week's homework you talk about an increase of 90% when the original number is 4 units of utility. Am I right to assume that the 90% increase is really 190% of the original number (4)? Thanks. [[User:kevin51292]]<br />
<br />
:'''REPLY TO HOMEWORK QUESTION:''' No, Kevin, that's not correct. There is declining marginal utility. The first hour the benefit is 4 units, but the second hour the benefit must be less: 90% times 4.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:41, 5 March 2007 (EST)<br />
<br />
(add more questions here)<br />
<br />
Mr. Schlafly, in question number 7, what is political bias?<br />
<br />
Daniel<br />
<br />
:Daniel, question 7 says: "Do you think a Giffen good really exists? Can you see any possible political bias in the claim that Giffen goods exist? Your views, please."<br />
<br />
:By "political bias," I mean bias motivated by a political belief or goal. For example, "scientists say there is global warming" may be motivated by a "political bias" of the scientists wanting more government control over business, under the guise of preventing global warming. As an other example, the (false) claim that "gun control would save lives" reflects a "political bias" to take guns away from lawful citizens and require them to rely more on government rather than self-defense.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:52, 7 March 2007 (EST)<br />
<br />
Hi Mr. Schlafly!! In question #8 you say prove the Law of Demand, I assume that means that I am to prove why the Law of Demand states that I should buy more of the milk when I'm only considering marginal utility. Is this correct?--[[User:Kevin51292|Kevin51292]] 17:05, 7 March 2007 (EST)<br />
<br />
: Right. Hint: you may use the law of equiproportional marginal benefit (MUa/Pa=MUb/Pb=MUc/Pc). --[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:09, 7 March 2007 (EST)<br />
<br />
== Questions on Prior Weeks' Homework: ==<br />
<br />
Question two in [[Economics Lecture Two|assignment two]] says: "Suppose the price demand curve is P=$20-Q, where P is price and Q is quantity. Also suppose the price supply curve is P=$4+Q. At what price and quantity will the good be sold?" The [[Economics Lecture Two|lecture]] does not address how to work with these equations. Are we supposed to graph them using the price as the slope and Q as the y intercept? ~ [[User:SharonS|SharonS]] 17:55, 16 February 2007 (EST)<br />
<br />
:Sharon, we can expect the good to be sold where supply equals demand. If supply were greater than demand, then the price would be lowered to sell the surplus. If supply were less than demand, then the price would be raised to increase profits.<br />
<br />
:You can find where supply equals demand either by graphing the supply and demand curves and seeing where they intersect, or by solving the two equations to find the common values of P and Q through use of algebra.<br />
<br />
:Hope that helps!--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:29, 16 February 2007 (EST)<br />
<br />
:P.S. Just as in class and in the [[Economics Lecture Two|lecture]], '''P (price) is graphed using the y-axis, and Q (quantity) is graphed using the x-axis'''. --[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:49, 17 February 2007 (EST)<br />
<br />
:Thank you! I didn't think of finding the common values of P and Q using algebra. Solving the equations with algebra gives the answers for P and Q in dollars. Should I just take the dollar sign off the number I get for Q and treat that as the quantity sold? ~ [[User:SharonS|SharonS]] 10:30, 17 February 2007 (EST)<br />
<br />
::Yes, just remove the dollar sign. There is always a mismatch in units in graphing Price (in dollars) as a function of Quantity (a non-dollar variable)--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:37, 17 February 2007 (EST).<br />
<br />
I am a bit confused with problem four in [[Economics Lecture Two|assignment two]]. The question reads:<br />
:"Suppose 1000 persons in a town each have the following weekly demands for gas, and the gas stations have the following weekly supplies:<br />
<br />
:Gallons Demand Price/gallon Supply Price/gallon<br />
:10 $2.50 $.50<br />
:20 $2 $.75<br />
:30 $1 $1<br />
:40 $.75 $1.50<br />
<br />
:(A) What is the price and overall quantity of gas sold each week?<br />
:(B) Suppose Congress declares war and imposes a price control of $.75 per gallon. At what price and overall quantity will gas sell each week?"<br />
<br />
I don't understand what is meant by the first sentence. Do a thousand people need ten gallons, a thousand need 20 gallons and so on, or are there only a thousand people, roughly a quarter of which will need each quantity? ~ [[User:SharonS|SharonS]] 13:15, 19 February 2007 (EST)<br />
<br />
:REPLY: Good question, Sharon. "Suppose 1000 persons in a town '''each''' have the following weekly demands for gas ..." means "'''each'''" person has the expressed demand (and likewise, the supply is for each). As always, the key is to find where supply meets demand, or where the supply and demand curves intersect.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:25, 19 February 2007 (EST)<br />
<br />
:Thank you! I think I've got it now.<font color=green> ~ [[User:SharonS|SharonS]] 16:54, 19 February 2007 (EST)</font><br />
<br />
Hi Mr. Schlafly!! On the homework for this week on question #2 you ask at what quantity the goods will be sold at on the curve. How do you label the quantity? I know with the price you would obviously label it as dollars, but do you do the same for quantity? Thanks. -User:kevin51292<br />
<br />
:REPLY: Great question, Kevin. "Quantity" is expressed in the units of goods specified (e.g., gallons, pairs of shoes, candy bars, etc.). Where, as in question 2, no goods are specified, then you could simply say "units".--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:14, 20 February 2007 (EST)<br />
<br />
Hi Mr. Schlafly!! Thanks for the above answer, that really clarifies things. As I am doing my homework I came across another question that I had. On question #6, are you looking for the price at which the strangers want to buy all the tickets that the scalpers offer, or are you looking for the highest common price at which tickets could be sold? Because there are multiple common prices that would result in tickets being sold (anything ranging from $8 to $15). [[User:kevin51292]]<br />
<br />
Kevin, assume that a common price (a "market price") is used for all sales.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:38, 20 February 2007 (EST)<br />
<br />
== Prior discussion unrelated to homework ==<br />
<br />
:1) How does economic theory explain why anyone ever gives anything but money as a gift?<br />
<br />
:If someone gives me (say) ''The New Annotated Sherlock Holmes: The Complete Short Stories'' I might be pleased, but if someone gave me $95 I could ''buy'' ''The New Annotated Sherlock Holmes: The Complete Short Stories,'' in which case I would be just as pleased. Or, I might use the money to buy something different which I liked better. Or, I might know of a place to buy it at a discount, in which case I could have my book and extra money, too.<br />
<br />
:If someone gives me money, the ''worst case'' is that I do not know of anything that would please me more than the intended gift. In every other case, I can do better with the money than with the gift. Therefore, it would seem that the economist's "rational man" would always prefer to give and receive the money. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 15:51, 8 February 2007 (EST)<br />
<br />
<br />
The "rational man" is not merely interesdted in money but in total utility (the economic term for overall satisfaction); he might get more utility by reciving a gift that he knows was specially chosen for him by the giver than from a cash gift that has no personal meaning. Likewise he would get utility from giving a meaningful gift. In fact, if it ''were'' simply about money the "rational man" probably would not be giving at all!<br />
<br />
--[[User:BenjaminS|BenjaminS]] 12:38, 9 February 2007 (EST)<br />
<br />
Good point Ben. Also, remember that money really has no inherent value- it must be exchanged before it is useful to anyone except perhaps a coin collector. Thus, by giving someone a useful item as a gift rather than money, you are sparing the receiver of the gift the transaction costs involved in exchanging money for that item. So if we assume (1) that the giver knows what gift the reciever wants, (2) that the reciever would consider it a chore to take the neccesary steps to obtain the gift, and (3) that the giver will not mind, or perhaps even enjoy, taking those same steps, then the traditional mode of gift giving becomes economically rational. <br />
-Chris J<br />
<br />
:2) Consider a company whose stock pays no dividends, and whose management's states that their intention is not to pay them in the future. The present value of a future stream of zero dividends is zero. How does economic theory explain why people are willing to buy such stock? [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 16:39, 8 February 2007 (EST)<br />
<br />
There are two scenario's that come to mind. The straightforward explanation is that the firm is a charitable organization, and the investors by stock in view of the beneficial effect the firm has on their community. The second explanation is that the economic activity of the aforementioned firm is beneficial to the investor. For example, small business owners in a certain town might be willing to invest in a ski-mountain, golf resort, amusement park etc. moving in their town even if it were not directly profitable, if it would attract tourists and increase the demand for their own goods and services.<br />
-Chris J<br />
<br />
::Well, that wasn't all that hypothetical an example. Many stocks pay no dividends. For example, that described Digital Equipment Corporation for at least three decades; it was no charity; and investors were willing to pay quite a lot of money for Digital shares. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 21:05, 16 February 2007 (EST)<br />
<br />
::The stock gets it's value from the total value of the company divided by the number of outstanding shares. Dividends are the profits made by a company that are not reinvested in the company as retained earnings. The only way to take money out of a company is to pay all the shareholders proportionally. So if the company were sold for cash for example, each shareholder would get a portion of the sale in proportion to how many shares they have. By leaving the profits in the company the value of the company increases, increasing the value of the stock. The stock price and company value match up because of two forces acting on the stock price: 1) If the stock price is lower than the value of the company then someone could buy enough of the stock to sell the company for cash and make more than he paid for the stock. 2) If the stock price his higher than the value of the company, then the market demand for the stock decreases because you wont be able to get that amount of money out of the company and the price drops accordingly.</div>Kevin51292https://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Microeconomics_Terms_M&diff=51066Microeconomics Terms M2007-03-20T11:53:08Z<p>Kevin51292: </p>
<hr />
<div>[[Microeconomics Terms A|A]]-[[Microeconomics Terms B|B]]-[[Microeconomics Terms C|C]]-[[Microeconomics Terms D|D]]-[[Microeconomics Terms E|E]]-[[Microeconomics Terms F|F]]-[[Microeconomics Terms G|G]]-[[Microeconomics Terms H|H]]-[[Microeconomics Terms I|I]]-[[Microeconomics Terms J|J]]-[[Microeconomics Terms K|K]]-[[Microeconomics Terms L|L]]-[[Microeconomics Terms M|M]]-[[Microeconomics Terms N|N]]-[[Microeconomics Terms O|O]]-[[Microeconomics Terms P|P]]-[[Microeconomics Terms Q|Q]]-[[Microeconomics Terms R|R]]-[[Microeconomics Terms S|S]]-[[Microeconomics Terms T|T]]-[[Microeconomics Terms U|U]]-[[Microeconomics Terms V|V]]-[[Microeconomics Terms W|W]]-[[Microeconomics Terms X|X]]-[[Microeconomics Terms Y|Y]]-[[Microeconomics Terms Z|Z]]<br />
<br />
<br />
[[Marginal Analysis]]<br />
<br />
<br />
[[Marginal Cost]]<br />
<br />
<br />
[[Marginal Product]]<br />
<br />
<br />
[[Marginal Revenue]]<br />
<br />
<br />
[[Marginal Utility]]<br />
<br />
<br />
[[Money]]</div>Kevin51292https://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Economics&diff=47642Talk:Economics2007-03-19T11:22:22Z<p>Kevin51292: </p>
<hr />
<div>== Questions on Week 6 Homework ==<br />
<br />
Hi Mr. Schlafly!! On question #7 of this week's homework it seems a little confusing to me. The first two sentences say this. Suppose your classmate's company grew and grew, until it had 1 million employees. But then the economy had a downturn, and you faced bankruptcy. I think that you might have meant that your classmate faced bankruptcy as you have not mentioned anyone other than the classmate to that point and later to say that you are in the legislature. Is this correct that the question should read that your classmate faces bankruptcy? Thanks.--[[User:Kevin51292|Kevin51292]] 07:22, 19 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
<br />
== Questions on Week 5 Homework ==<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
== Questions on Week 4 Homework ==<br />
<br />
Hi Mr. Schlafly!! On question #3 of this week's homework you talk about an increase of 90% when the original number is 4 units of utility. Am I right to assume that the 90% increase is really 190% of the original number (4)? Thanks. [[User:kevin51292]]<br />
<br />
:'''REPLY TO HOMEWORK QUESTION:''' No, Kevin, that's not correct. There is declining marginal utility. The first hour the benefit is 4 units, but the second hour the benefit must be less: 90% times 4.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:41, 5 March 2007 (EST)<br />
<br />
(add more questions here)<br />
<br />
Mr. Schlafly, in question number 7, what is political bias?<br />
<br />
Daniel<br />
<br />
:Daniel, question 7 says: "Do you think a Giffen good really exists? Can you see any possible political bias in the claim that Giffen goods exist? Your views, please."<br />
<br />
:By "political bias," I mean bias motivated by a political belief or goal. For example, "scientists say there is global warming" may be motivated by a "political bias" of the scientists wanting more government control over business, under the guise of preventing global warming. As an other example, the (false) claim that "gun control would save lives" reflects a "political bias" to take guns away from lawful citizens and require them to rely more on government rather than self-defense.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:52, 7 March 2007 (EST)<br />
<br />
Hi Mr. Schlafly!! In question #8 you say prove the Law of Demand, I assume that means that I am to prove why the Law of Demand states that I should buy more of the milk when I'm only considering marginal utility. Is this correct?--[[User:Kevin51292|Kevin51292]] 17:05, 7 March 2007 (EST)<br />
<br />
: Right. Hint: you may use the law of equiproportional marginal benefit (MUa/Pa=MUb/Pb=MUc/Pc). --[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:09, 7 March 2007 (EST)<br />
<br />
== Questions on Prior Weeks' Homework: ==<br />
<br />
Question two in [[Economics Lecture Two|assignment two]] says: "Suppose the price demand curve is P=$20-Q, where P is price and Q is quantity. Also suppose the price supply curve is P=$4+Q. At what price and quantity will the good be sold?" The [[Economics Lecture Two|lecture]] does not address how to work with these equations. Are we supposed to graph them using the price as the slope and Q as the y intercept? ~ [[User:SharonS|SharonS]] 17:55, 16 February 2007 (EST)<br />
<br />
:Sharon, we can expect the good to be sold where supply equals demand. If supply were greater than demand, then the price would be lowered to sell the surplus. If supply were less than demand, then the price would be raised to increase profits.<br />
<br />
:You can find where supply equals demand either by graphing the supply and demand curves and seeing where they intersect, or by solving the two equations to find the common values of P and Q through use of algebra.<br />
<br />
:Hope that helps!--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:29, 16 February 2007 (EST)<br />
<br />
:P.S. Just as in class and in the [[Economics Lecture Two|lecture]], '''P (price) is graphed using the y-axis, and Q (quantity) is graphed using the x-axis'''. --[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:49, 17 February 2007 (EST)<br />
<br />
:Thank you! I didn't think of finding the common values of P and Q using algebra. Solving the equations with algebra gives the answers for P and Q in dollars. Should I just take the dollar sign off the number I get for Q and treat that as the quantity sold? ~ [[User:SharonS|SharonS]] 10:30, 17 February 2007 (EST)<br />
<br />
::Yes, just remove the dollar sign. There is always a mismatch in units in graphing Price (in dollars) as a function of Quantity (a non-dollar variable)--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:37, 17 February 2007 (EST).<br />
<br />
I am a bit confused with problem four in [[Economics Lecture Two|assignment two]]. The question reads:<br />
:"Suppose 1000 persons in a town each have the following weekly demands for gas, and the gas stations have the following weekly supplies:<br />
<br />
:Gallons Demand Price/gallon Supply Price/gallon<br />
:10 $2.50 $.50<br />
:20 $2 $.75<br />
:30 $1 $1<br />
:40 $.75 $1.50<br />
<br />
:(A) What is the price and overall quantity of gas sold each week?<br />
:(B) Suppose Congress declares war and imposes a price control of $.75 per gallon. At what price and overall quantity will gas sell each week?"<br />
<br />
I don't understand what is meant by the first sentence. Do a thousand people need ten gallons, a thousand need 20 gallons and so on, or are there only a thousand people, roughly a quarter of which will need each quantity? ~ [[User:SharonS|SharonS]] 13:15, 19 February 2007 (EST)<br />
<br />
:REPLY: Good question, Sharon. "Suppose 1000 persons in a town '''each''' have the following weekly demands for gas ..." means "'''each'''" person has the expressed demand (and likewise, the supply is for each). As always, the key is to find where supply meets demand, or where the supply and demand curves intersect.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:25, 19 February 2007 (EST)<br />
<br />
:Thank you! I think I've got it now.<font color=green> ~ [[User:SharonS|SharonS]] 16:54, 19 February 2007 (EST)</font><br />
<br />
Hi Mr. Schlafly!! On the homework for this week on question #2 you ask at what quantity the goods will be sold at on the curve. How do you label the quantity? I know with the price you would obviously label it as dollars, but do you do the same for quantity? Thanks. -User:kevin51292<br />
<br />
:REPLY: Great question, Kevin. "Quantity" is expressed in the units of goods specified (e.g., gallons, pairs of shoes, candy bars, etc.). Where, as in question 2, no goods are specified, then you could simply say "units".--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:14, 20 February 2007 (EST)<br />
<br />
Hi Mr. Schlafly!! Thanks for the above answer, that really clarifies things. As I am doing my homework I came across another question that I had. On question #6, are you looking for the price at which the strangers want to buy all the tickets that the scalpers offer, or are you looking for the highest common price at which tickets could be sold? Because there are multiple common prices that would result in tickets being sold (anything ranging from $8 to $15). [[User:kevin51292]]<br />
<br />
Kevin, assume that a common price (a "market price") is used for all sales.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:38, 20 February 2007 (EST)<br />
<br />
== Prior discussion unrelated to homework ==<br />
<br />
:1) How does economic theory explain why anyone ever gives anything but money as a gift?<br />
<br />
:If someone gives me (say) ''The New Annotated Sherlock Holmes: The Complete Short Stories'' I might be pleased, but if someone gave me $95 I could ''buy'' ''The New Annotated Sherlock Holmes: The Complete Short Stories,'' in which case I would be just as pleased. Or, I might use the money to buy something different which I liked better. Or, I might know of a place to buy it at a discount, in which case I could have my book and extra money, too.<br />
<br />
:If someone gives me money, the ''worst case'' is that I do not know of anything that would please me more than the intended gift. In every other case, I can do better with the money than with the gift. Therefore, it would seem that the economist's "rational man" would always prefer to give and receive the money. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 15:51, 8 February 2007 (EST)<br />
<br />
<br />
The "rational man" is not merely interesdted in money but in total utility (the economic term for overall satisfaction); he might get more utility by reciving a gift that he knows was specially chosen for him by the giver than from a cash gift that has no personal meaning. Likewise he would get utility from giving a meaningful gift. In fact, if it ''were'' simply about money the "rational man" probably would not be giving at all!<br />
<br />
--[[User:BenjaminS|BenjaminS]] 12:38, 9 February 2007 (EST)<br />
<br />
Good point Ben. Also, remember that money really has no inherent value- it must be exchanged before it is useful to anyone except perhaps a coin collector. Thus, by giving someone a useful item as a gift rather than money, you are sparing the receiver of the gift the transaction costs involved in exchanging money for that item. So if we assume (1) that the giver knows what gift the reciever wants, (2) that the reciever would consider it a chore to take the neccesary steps to obtain the gift, and (3) that the giver will not mind, or perhaps even enjoy, taking those same steps, then the traditional mode of gift giving becomes economically rational. <br />
-Chris J<br />
<br />
:2) Consider a company whose stock pays no dividends, and whose management's states that their intention is not to pay them in the future. The present value of a future stream of zero dividends is zero. How does economic theory explain why people are willing to buy such stock? [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 16:39, 8 February 2007 (EST)<br />
<br />
There are two scenario's that come to mind. The straightforward explanation is that the firm is a charitable organization, and the investors by stock in view of the beneficial effect the firm has on their community. The second explanation is that the economic activity of the aforementioned firm is beneficial to the investor. For example, small business owners in a certain town might be willing to invest in a ski-mountain, golf resort, amusement park etc. moving in their town even if it were not directly profitable, if it would attract tourists and increase the demand for their own goods and services.<br />
-Chris J<br />
<br />
::Well, that wasn't all that hypothetical an example. Many stocks pay no dividends. For example, that described Digital Equipment Corporation for at least three decades; it was no charity; and investors were willing to pay quite a lot of money for Digital shares. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 21:05, 16 February 2007 (EST)<br />
<br />
::The stock gets it's value from the total value of the company divided by the number of outstanding shares. Dividends are the profits made by a company that are not reinvested in the company as retained earnings. The only way to take money out of a company is to pay all the shareholders proportionally. So if the company were sold for cash for example, each shareholder would get a portion of the sale in proportion to how many shares they have. By leaving the profits in the company the value of the company increases, increasing the value of the stock. The stock price and company value match up because of two forces acting on the stock price: 1) If the stock price is lower than the value of the company then someone could buy enough of the stock to sell the company for cash and make more than he paid for the stock. 2) If the stock price his higher than the value of the company, then the market demand for the stock decreases because you wont be able to get that amount of money out of the company and the price drops accordingly.</div>Kevin51292https://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Economics&diff=19916Talk:Economics2007-03-07T22:05:34Z<p>Kevin51292: /* Questions on Week 4 Homework */</p>
<hr />
<div>== Questions on Week 4 Homework ==<br />
<br />
Hi Mr. Schlafly!! On question #3 of this week's homework you talk about an increase of 90% when the original number is 4 units of utility. Am I right to assume that the 90% increase is really 190% of the original number (4)? Thanks. [[User:kevin51292]]<br />
<br />
:'''REPLY TO HOMEWORK QUESTION:''' No, Kevin, that's not correct. There is declining marginal utility. The first hour the benefit is 4 units, but the second hour the benefit must be less: 90% times 4.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:41, 5 March 2007 (EST)<br />
<br />
(add more questions here)<br />
<br />
Mr. Schlafly, in question number 7, what is political bias?<br />
<br />
Daniel<br />
<br />
:Daniel, question 7 says: "Do you think a Giffen good really exists? Can you see any possible political bias in the claim that Giffen goods exist? Your views, please."<br />
<br />
:By "political bias," I mean bias motivated by a political belief or goal. For example, "scientists say there is global warming" may be motivated by a "political bias" of the scientists wanting more government control over business, under the guise of preventing global warming. As an other example, the (false) claim that "gun control would save lives" reflects a "political bias" to take guns away from lawful citizens and require them to rely more on government rather than self-defense.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:52, 7 March 2007 (EST)<br />
<br />
Hi Mr. Schlafly!! In question #8 you say prove the Law of Demand, I assume that means that I am to prove why the Law of Demand states that I should buy more of the milk when I'm only considering marginal utility. Is this correct?--[[User:Kevin51292|Kevin51292]] 17:05, 7 March 2007 (EST)<br />
<br />
== Questions on Prior Weeks' Homework: ==<br />
<br />
Question two in [[Economics Lecture Two|assignment two]] says: "Suppose the price demand curve is P=$20-Q, where P is price and Q is quantity. Also suppose the price supply curve is P=$4+Q. At what price and quantity will the good be sold?" The [[Economics Lecture Two|lecture]] does not address how to work with these equations. Are we supposed to graph them using the price as the slope and Q as the y intercept? ~ [[User:SharonS|SharonS]] 17:55, 16 February 2007 (EST)<br />
<br />
:Sharon, we can expect the good to be sold where supply equals demand. If supply were greater than demand, then the price would be lowered to sell the surplus. If supply were less than demand, then the price would be raised to increase profits.<br />
<br />
:You can find where supply equals demand either by graphing the supply and demand curves and seeing where they intersect, or by solving the two equations to find the common values of P and Q through use of algebra.<br />
<br />
:Hope that helps!--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:29, 16 February 2007 (EST)<br />
<br />
:P.S. Just as in class and in the [[Economics Lecture Two|lecture]], '''P (price) is graphed using the y-axis, and Q (quantity) is graphed using the x-axis'''. --[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:49, 17 February 2007 (EST)<br />
<br />
:Thank you! I didn't think of finding the common values of P and Q using algebra. Solving the equations with algebra gives the answers for P and Q in dollars. Should I just take the dollar sign off the number I get for Q and treat that as the quantity sold? ~ [[User:SharonS|SharonS]] 10:30, 17 February 2007 (EST)<br />
<br />
::Yes, just remove the dollar sign. There is always a mismatch in units in graphing Price (in dollars) as a function of Quantity (a non-dollar variable)--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:37, 17 February 2007 (EST).<br />
<br />
I am a bit confused with problem four in [[Economics Lecture Two|assignment two]]. The question reads:<br />
:"Suppose 1000 persons in a town each have the following weekly demands for gas, and the gas stations have the following weekly supplies:<br />
<br />
:Gallons Demand Price/gallon Supply Price/gallon<br />
:10 $2.50 $.50<br />
:20 $2 $.75<br />
:30 $1 $1<br />
:40 $.75 $1.50<br />
<br />
:(A) What is the price and overall quantity of gas sold each week?<br />
:(B) Suppose Congress declares war and imposes a price control of $.75 per gallon. At what price and overall quantity will gas sell each week?"<br />
<br />
I don't understand what is meant by the first sentence. Do a thousand people need ten gallons, a thousand need 20 gallons and so on, or are there only a thousand people, roughly a quarter of which will need each quantity? ~ [[User:SharonS|SharonS]] 13:15, 19 February 2007 (EST)<br />
<br />
:REPLY: Good question, Sharon. "Suppose 1000 persons in a town '''each''' have the following weekly demands for gas ..." means "'''each'''" person has the expressed demand (and likewise, the supply is for each). As always, the key is to find where supply meets demand, or where the supply and demand curves intersect.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:25, 19 February 2007 (EST)<br />
<br />
:Thank you! I think I've got it now.<font color=green> ~ [[User:SharonS|SharonS]] 16:54, 19 February 2007 (EST)</font><br />
<br />
Hi Mr. Schlafly!! On the homework for this week on question #2 you ask at what quantity the goods will be sold at on the curve. How do you label the quantity? I know with the price you would obviously label it as dollars, but do you do the same for quantity? Thanks. -User:kevin51292<br />
<br />
:REPLY: Great question, Kevin. "Quantity" is expressed in the units of goods specified (e.g., gallons, pairs of shoes, candy bars, etc.). Where, as in question 2, no goods are specified, then you could simply say "units".--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:14, 20 February 2007 (EST)<br />
<br />
Hi Mr. Schlafly!! Thanks for the above answer, that really clarifies things. As I am doing my homework I came across another question that I had. On question #6, are you looking for the price at which the strangers want to buy all the tickets that the scalpers offer, or are you looking for the highest common price at which tickets could be sold? Because there are multiple common prices that would result in tickets being sold (anything ranging from $8 to $15). [[User:kevin51292]]<br />
<br />
Kevin, assume that a common price (a "market price") is used for all sales.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:38, 20 February 2007 (EST)<br />
<br />
== Prior discussion unrelated to homework ==<br />
<br />
:1) How does economic theory explain why anyone ever gives anything but money as a gift?<br />
<br />
:If someone gives me (say) ''The New Annotated Sherlock Holmes: The Complete Short Stories'' I might be pleased, but if someone gave me $95 I could ''buy'' ''The New Annotated Sherlock Holmes: The Complete Short Stories,'' in which case I would be just as pleased. Or, I might use the money to buy something different which I liked better. Or, I might know of a place to buy it at a discount, in which case I could have my book and extra money, too.<br />
<br />
:If someone gives me money, the ''worst case'' is that I do not know of anything that would please me more than the intended gift. In every other case, I can do better with the money than with the gift. Therefore, it would seem that the economist's "rational man" would always prefer to give and receive the money. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 15:51, 8 February 2007 (EST)<br />
<br />
<br />
The "rational man" is not merely interesdted in money but in total utility (the economic term for overall satisfaction); he might get more utility by reciving a gift that he knows was specially chosen for him by the giver than from a cash gift that has no personal meaning. Likewise he would get utility from giving a meaningful gift. In fact, if it ''were'' simply about money the "rational man" probably would not be giving at all!<br />
<br />
--[[User:BenjaminS|BenjaminS]] 12:38, 9 February 2007 (EST)<br />
<br />
Good point Ben. Also, remember that money really has no inherent value- it must be exchanged before it is useful to anyone except perhaps a coin collector. Thus, by giving someone a useful item as a gift rather than money, you are sparing the receiver of the gift the transaction costs involved in exchanging money for that item. So if we assume (1) that the giver knows what gift the reciever wants, (2) that the reciever would consider it a chore to take the neccesary steps to obtain the gift, and (3) that the giver will not mind, or perhaps even enjoy, taking those same steps, then the traditional mode of gift giving becomes economically rational. <br />
-Chris J<br />
<br />
:2) Consider a company whose stock pays no dividends, and whose management's states that their intention is not to pay them in the future. The present value of a future stream of zero dividends is zero. How does economic theory explain why people are willing to buy such stock? [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 16:39, 8 February 2007 (EST)<br />
<br />
There are two scenario's that come to mind. The straightforward explanation is that the firm is a charitable organization, and the investors by stock in view of the beneficial effect the firm has on their community. The second explanation is that the economic activity of the aforementioned firm is beneficial to the investor. For example, small business owners in a certain town might be willing to invest in a ski-mountain, golf resort, amusement park etc. moving in their town even if it were not directly profitable, if it would attract tourists and increase the demand for their own goods and services.<br />
-Chris J<br />
<br />
::Well, that wasn't all that hypothetical an example. Many stocks pay no dividends. For example, that described Digital Equipment Corporation for at least three decades; it was no charity; and investors were willing to pay quite a lot of money for Digital shares. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 21:05, 16 February 2007 (EST)<br />
<br />
::The stock gets it's value from the total value of the company divided by the number of outstanding shares. Dividends are the profits made by a company that are not reinvested in the company as retained earnings. The only way to take money out of a company is to pay all the shareholders proportionally. So if the company were sold for cash for example, each shareholder would get a portion of the sale in proportion to how many shares they have. By leaving the profits in the company the value of the company increases, increasing the value of the stock. The stock price and company value match up because of two forces acting on the stock price: 1) If the stock price is lower than the value of the company then someone could buy enough of the stock to sell the company for cash and make more than he paid for the stock. 2) If the stock price his higher than the value of the company, then the market demand for the stock decreases because you wont be able to get that amount of money out of the company and the price drops accordingly.</div>Kevin51292https://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Economics&diff=19913Talk:Economics2007-03-07T22:02:28Z<p>Kevin51292: /* Questions on Week 4 Homework */</p>
<hr />
<div>== Questions on Week 4 Homework ==<br />
<br />
Hi Mr. Schlafly!! On question #3 of this week's homework you talk about an increase of 90% when the original number is 4 units of utility. Am I right to assume that the 90% increase is really 190% of the original number (4)? Thanks. [[User:kevin51292]]<br />
<br />
:'''REPLY TO HOMEWORK QUESTION:''' No, Kevin, that's not correct. There is declining marginal utility. The first hour the benefit is 4 units, but the second hour the benefit must be less: 90% times 4.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:41, 5 March 2007 (EST)<br />
<br />
(add more questions here)<br />
<br />
Mr. Schlafly, in question number 7, what is political bias?<br />
<br />
Daniel<br />
<br />
:Daniel, question 7 says: "Do you think a Giffen good really exists? Can you see any possible political bias in the claim that Giffen goods exist? Your views, please."<br />
<br />
:By "political bias," I mean bias motivated by a political belief or goal. For example, "scientists say there is global warming" may be motivated by a "political bias" of the scientists wanting more government control over business, under the guise of preventing global warming. As an other example, the (false) claim that "gun control would save lives" reflects a "political bias" to take guns away from lawful citizens and require them to rely more on government rather than self-defense.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:52, 7 March 2007 (EST)<br />
<br />
Hi Mr. Schlafly!! In question #8 you say prove the Law of Demand, I assume that means that I am to prove why the Law of Demand states that I should buy more of the milk when I'm only considering marginal utility. Is this correct?<br />
<br />
== Questions on Prior Weeks' Homework: ==<br />
<br />
Question two in [[Economics Lecture Two|assignment two]] says: "Suppose the price demand curve is P=$20-Q, where P is price and Q is quantity. Also suppose the price supply curve is P=$4+Q. At what price and quantity will the good be sold?" The [[Economics Lecture Two|lecture]] does not address how to work with these equations. Are we supposed to graph them using the price as the slope and Q as the y intercept? ~ [[User:SharonS|SharonS]] 17:55, 16 February 2007 (EST)<br />
<br />
:Sharon, we can expect the good to be sold where supply equals demand. If supply were greater than demand, then the price would be lowered to sell the surplus. If supply were less than demand, then the price would be raised to increase profits.<br />
<br />
:You can find where supply equals demand either by graphing the supply and demand curves and seeing where they intersect, or by solving the two equations to find the common values of P and Q through use of algebra.<br />
<br />
:Hope that helps!--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:29, 16 February 2007 (EST)<br />
<br />
:P.S. Just as in class and in the [[Economics Lecture Two|lecture]], '''P (price) is graphed using the y-axis, and Q (quantity) is graphed using the x-axis'''. --[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:49, 17 February 2007 (EST)<br />
<br />
:Thank you! I didn't think of finding the common values of P and Q using algebra. Solving the equations with algebra gives the answers for P and Q in dollars. Should I just take the dollar sign off the number I get for Q and treat that as the quantity sold? ~ [[User:SharonS|SharonS]] 10:30, 17 February 2007 (EST)<br />
<br />
::Yes, just remove the dollar sign. There is always a mismatch in units in graphing Price (in dollars) as a function of Quantity (a non-dollar variable)--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:37, 17 February 2007 (EST).<br />
<br />
I am a bit confused with problem four in [[Economics Lecture Two|assignment two]]. The question reads:<br />
:"Suppose 1000 persons in a town each have the following weekly demands for gas, and the gas stations have the following weekly supplies:<br />
<br />
:Gallons Demand Price/gallon Supply Price/gallon<br />
:10 $2.50 $.50<br />
:20 $2 $.75<br />
:30 $1 $1<br />
:40 $.75 $1.50<br />
<br />
:(A) What is the price and overall quantity of gas sold each week?<br />
:(B) Suppose Congress declares war and imposes a price control of $.75 per gallon. At what price and overall quantity will gas sell each week?"<br />
<br />
I don't understand what is meant by the first sentence. Do a thousand people need ten gallons, a thousand need 20 gallons and so on, or are there only a thousand people, roughly a quarter of which will need each quantity? ~ [[User:SharonS|SharonS]] 13:15, 19 February 2007 (EST)<br />
<br />
:REPLY: Good question, Sharon. "Suppose 1000 persons in a town '''each''' have the following weekly demands for gas ..." means "'''each'''" person has the expressed demand (and likewise, the supply is for each). As always, the key is to find where supply meets demand, or where the supply and demand curves intersect.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:25, 19 February 2007 (EST)<br />
<br />
:Thank you! I think I've got it now.<font color=green> ~ [[User:SharonS|SharonS]] 16:54, 19 February 2007 (EST)</font><br />
<br />
Hi Mr. Schlafly!! On the homework for this week on question #2 you ask at what quantity the goods will be sold at on the curve. How do you label the quantity? I know with the price you would obviously label it as dollars, but do you do the same for quantity? Thanks. -User:kevin51292<br />
<br />
:REPLY: Great question, Kevin. "Quantity" is expressed in the units of goods specified (e.g., gallons, pairs of shoes, candy bars, etc.). Where, as in question 2, no goods are specified, then you could simply say "units".--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:14, 20 February 2007 (EST)<br />
<br />
Hi Mr. Schlafly!! Thanks for the above answer, that really clarifies things. As I am doing my homework I came across another question that I had. On question #6, are you looking for the price at which the strangers want to buy all the tickets that the scalpers offer, or are you looking for the highest common price at which tickets could be sold? Because there are multiple common prices that would result in tickets being sold (anything ranging from $8 to $15). [[User:kevin51292]]<br />
<br />
Kevin, assume that a common price (a "market price") is used for all sales.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:38, 20 February 2007 (EST)<br />
<br />
== Prior discussion unrelated to homework ==<br />
<br />
:1) How does economic theory explain why anyone ever gives anything but money as a gift?<br />
<br />
:If someone gives me (say) ''The New Annotated Sherlock Holmes: The Complete Short Stories'' I might be pleased, but if someone gave me $95 I could ''buy'' ''The New Annotated Sherlock Holmes: The Complete Short Stories,'' in which case I would be just as pleased. Or, I might use the money to buy something different which I liked better. Or, I might know of a place to buy it at a discount, in which case I could have my book and extra money, too.<br />
<br />
:If someone gives me money, the ''worst case'' is that I do not know of anything that would please me more than the intended gift. In every other case, I can do better with the money than with the gift. Therefore, it would seem that the economist's "rational man" would always prefer to give and receive the money. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 15:51, 8 February 2007 (EST)<br />
<br />
<br />
The "rational man" is not merely interesdted in money but in total utility (the economic term for overall satisfaction); he might get more utility by reciving a gift that he knows was specially chosen for him by the giver than from a cash gift that has no personal meaning. Likewise he would get utility from giving a meaningful gift. In fact, if it ''were'' simply about money the "rational man" probably would not be giving at all!<br />
<br />
--[[User:BenjaminS|BenjaminS]] 12:38, 9 February 2007 (EST)<br />
<br />
Good point Ben. Also, remember that money really has no inherent value- it must be exchanged before it is useful to anyone except perhaps a coin collector. Thus, by giving someone a useful item as a gift rather than money, you are sparing the receiver of the gift the transaction costs involved in exchanging money for that item. So if we assume (1) that the giver knows what gift the reciever wants, (2) that the reciever would consider it a chore to take the neccesary steps to obtain the gift, and (3) that the giver will not mind, or perhaps even enjoy, taking those same steps, then the traditional mode of gift giving becomes economically rational. <br />
-Chris J<br />
<br />
:2) Consider a company whose stock pays no dividends, and whose management's states that their intention is not to pay them in the future. The present value of a future stream of zero dividends is zero. How does economic theory explain why people are willing to buy such stock? [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 16:39, 8 February 2007 (EST)<br />
<br />
There are two scenario's that come to mind. The straightforward explanation is that the firm is a charitable organization, and the investors by stock in view of the beneficial effect the firm has on their community. The second explanation is that the economic activity of the aforementioned firm is beneficial to the investor. For example, small business owners in a certain town might be willing to invest in a ski-mountain, golf resort, amusement park etc. moving in their town even if it were not directly profitable, if it would attract tourists and increase the demand for their own goods and services.<br />
-Chris J<br />
<br />
::Well, that wasn't all that hypothetical an example. Many stocks pay no dividends. For example, that described Digital Equipment Corporation for at least three decades; it was no charity; and investors were willing to pay quite a lot of money for Digital shares. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 21:05, 16 February 2007 (EST)<br />
<br />
::The stock gets it's value from the total value of the company divided by the number of outstanding shares. Dividends are the profits made by a company that are not reinvested in the company as retained earnings. The only way to take money out of a company is to pay all the shareholders proportionally. So if the company were sold for cash for example, each shareholder would get a portion of the sale in proportion to how many shares they have. By leaving the profits in the company the value of the company increases, increasing the value of the stock. The stock price and company value match up because of two forces acting on the stock price: 1) If the stock price is lower than the value of the company then someone could buy enough of the stock to sell the company for cash and make more than he paid for the stock. 2) If the stock price his higher than the value of the company, then the market demand for the stock decreases because you wont be able to get that amount of money out of the company and the price drops accordingly.</div>Kevin51292https://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk:Kevin51292&diff=18465User talk:Kevin512922007-03-05T18:27:32Z<p>Kevin51292: </p>
<hr />
<div>Hi!! If you have any questions, comments, or corrections please feel free to post here.<br />
<br />
<br />
==Signature Button==<br />
<br />
Hey Kevin. There is a signature button at the top of all edit text boxes, such as the one I am using now. If you press it, it will fill in your name or nickname(optional) and the date and time. That way, you do not have to write out the entire link to your user page. It is the second to last button in the toolbar. --[[User:David R|&lt;&lt;-David R-&gt;&gt;]] 13:11, 5 March 2007 (EST)<br />
<br />
<br />
Cool, thanks for showing me that!! --[[User:Kevin51292|Kevin51292]] 13:27, 5 March 2007 (EST)</div>Kevin51292https://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Economics&diff=18443Talk:Economics2007-03-05T17:36:11Z<p>Kevin51292: /* Enter new questions here: */</p>
<hr />
<div>== Enter new questions here: ==<br />
<br />
Question two in [[Economics Lecture Two|assignment two]] says: "Suppose the price demand curve is P=$20-Q, where P is price and Q is quantity. Also suppose the price supply curve is P=$4+Q. At what price and quantity will the good be sold?" The [[Economics Lecture Two|lecture]] does not address how to work with these equations. Are we supposed to graph them using the price as the slope and Q as the y intercept? ~ [[User:SharonS|SharonS]] 17:55, 16 February 2007 (EST)<br />
<br />
:Sharon, we can expect the good to be sold where supply equals demand. If supply were greater than demand, then the price would be lowered to sell the surplus. If supply were less than demand, then the price would be raised to increase profits.<br />
<br />
:You can find where supply equals demand either by graphing the supply and demand curves and seeing where they intersect, or by solving the two equations to find the common values of P and Q through use of algebra.<br />
<br />
:Hope that helps!--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:29, 16 February 2007 (EST)<br />
<br />
:P.S. Just as in class and in the [[Economics Lecture Two|lecture]], '''P (price) is graphed using the y-axis, and Q (quantity) is graphed using the x-axis'''. --[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:49, 17 February 2007 (EST)<br />
<br />
:Thank you! I didn't think of finding the common values of P and Q using algebra. Solving the equations with algebra gives the answers for P and Q in dollars. Should I just take the dollar sign off the number I get for Q and treat that as the quantity sold? ~ [[User:SharonS|SharonS]] 10:30, 17 February 2007 (EST)<br />
<br />
::Yes, just remove the dollar sign. There is always a mismatch in units in graphing Price (in dollars) as a function of Quantity (a non-dollar variable)--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:37, 17 February 2007 (EST).<br />
<br />
I am a bit confused with problem four in [[Economics Lecture Two|assignment two]]. The question reads:<br />
:"Suppose 1000 persons in a town each have the following weekly demands for gas, and the gas stations have the following weekly supplies:<br />
<br />
:Gallons Demand Price/gallon Supply Price/gallon<br />
:10 $2.50 $.50<br />
:20 $2 $.75<br />
:30 $1 $1<br />
:40 $.75 $1.50<br />
<br />
:(A) What is the price and overall quantity of gas sold each week?<br />
:(B) Suppose Congress declares war and imposes a price control of $.75 per gallon. At what price and overall quantity will gas sell each week?"<br />
<br />
I don't understand what is meant by the first sentence. Do a thousand people need ten gallons, a thousand need 20 gallons and so on, or are there only a thousand people, roughly a quarter of which will need each quantity? ~ [[User:SharonS|SharonS]] 13:15, 19 February 2007 (EST)<br />
<br />
:REPLY: Good question, Sharon. "Suppose 1000 persons in a town '''each''' have the following weekly demands for gas ..." means "'''each'''" person has the expressed demand (and likewise, the supply is for each). As always, the key is to find where supply meets demand, or where the supply and demand curves intersect.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:25, 19 February 2007 (EST)<br />
<br />
:Thank you! I think I've got it now.<font color=green> ~ [[User:SharonS|SharonS]] 16:54, 19 February 2007 (EST)</font><br />
<br />
Hi Mr. Schlafly!! On the homework for this week on question #2 you ask at what quantity the goods will be sold at on the curve. How do you label the quantity? I know with the price you would obviously label it as dollars, but do you do the same for quantity? Thanks. -User:kevin51292<br />
<br />
:REPLY: Great question, Kevin. "Quantity" is expressed in the units of goods specified (e.g., gallons, pairs of shoes, candy bars, etc.). Where, as in question 2, no goods are specified, then you could simply say "units".--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:14, 20 February 2007 (EST)<br />
<br />
Hi Mr. Schlafly!! Thanks for the above answer, that really clarifies things. As I am doing my homework I came across another question that I had. On question #6, are you looking for the price at which the strangers want to buy all the tickets that the scalpers offer, or are you looking for the highest common price at which tickets could be sold? Because there are multiple common prices that would result in tickets being sold (anything ranging from $8 to $15). [[User:kevin51292]]<br />
<br />
Kevin, assume that a common price (a "market price") is used for all sales.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:38, 20 February 2007 (EST)<br />
<br />
Hi Mr. Schlafly!! On question #3 of this week's homework you talk about an increase of 90% when the original number is 4 units of utility. Am I right to assume that the 90% increase is really 190% of the original number (4)? Thanks. [[User:kevin51292]]<br />
<br />
== Prior discussion unrelated to homework ==<br />
<br />
:1) How does economic theory explain why anyone ever gives anything but money as a gift?<br />
<br />
:If someone gives me (say) ''The New Annotated Sherlock Holmes: The Complete Short Stories'' I might be pleased, but if someone gave me $95 I could ''buy'' ''The New Annotated Sherlock Holmes: The Complete Short Stories,'' in which case I would be just as pleased. Or, I might use the money to buy something different which I liked better. Or, I might know of a place to buy it at a discount, in which case I could have my book and extra money, too.<br />
<br />
:If someone gives me money, the ''worst case'' is that I do not know of anything that would please me more than the intended gift. In every other case, I can do better with the money than with the gift. Therefore, it would seem that the economist's "rational man" would always prefer to give and receive the money. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 15:51, 8 February 2007 (EST)<br />
<br />
<br />
The "rational man" is not merely interesdted in money but in total utility (the economic term for overall satisfaction); he might get more utility by reciving a gift that he knows was specially chosen for him by the giver than from a cash gift that has no personal meaning. Likewise he would get utility from giving a meaningful gift. In fact, if it ''were'' simply about money the "rational man" probably would not be giving at all!<br />
<br />
--[[User:BenjaminS|BenjaminS]] 12:38, 9 February 2007 (EST)<br />
<br />
Good point Ben. Also, remember that money really has no inherent value- it must be exchanged before it is useful to anyone except perhaps a coin collector. Thus, by giving someone a useful item as a gift rather than money, you are sparing the receiver of the gift the transaction costs involved in exchanging money for that item. So if we assume (1) that the giver knows what gift the reciever wants, (2) that the reciever would consider it a chore to take the neccesary steps to obtain the gift, and (3) that the giver will not mind, or perhaps even enjoy, taking those same steps, then the traditional mode of gift giving becomes economically rational. <br />
-Chris J<br />
<br />
:2) Consider a company whose stock pays no dividends, and whose management's states that their intention is not to pay them in the future. The present value of a future stream of zero dividends is zero. How does economic theory explain why people are willing to buy such stock? [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 16:39, 8 February 2007 (EST)<br />
<br />
There are two scenario's that come to mind. The straightforward explanation is that the firm is a charitable organization, and the investors by stock in view of the beneficial effect the firm has on their community. The second explanation is that the economic activity of the aforementioned firm is beneficial to the investor. For example, small business owners in a certain town might be willing to invest in a ski-mountain, golf resort, amusement park etc. moving in their town even if it were not directly profitable, if it would attract tourists and increase the demand for their own goods and services.<br />
-Chris J<br />
<br />
::Well, that wasn't all that hypothetical an example. Many stocks pay no dividends. For example, that described Digital Equipment Corporation for at least three decades; it was no charity; and investors were willing to pay quite a lot of money for Digital shares. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 21:05, 16 February 2007 (EST)<br />
<br />
::The stock gets it's value from the total value of the company divided by the number of outstanding shares. Dividends are the profits made by a company that are not reinvested in the company as retained earnings. The only way to take money out of a company is to pay all the shareholders proportionally. So if the company were sold for cash for example, each shareholder would get a portion of the sale in proportion to how many shares they have. By leaving the profits in the company the value of the company increases, increasing the value of the stock. The stock price and company value match up because of two forces acting on the stock price: 1) If the stock price is lower than the value of the company then someone could buy enough of the stock to sell the company for cash and make more than he paid for the stock. 2) If the stock price his higher than the value of the company, then the market demand for the stock decreases because you wont be able to get that amount of money out of the company and the price drops accordingly.</div>Kevin51292https://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Economics&diff=18441Talk:Economics2007-03-05T17:35:38Z<p>Kevin51292: /* Enter new questions here: */</p>
<hr />
<div>== Enter new questions here: ==<br />
<br />
Question two in [[Economics Lecture Two|assignment two]] says: "Suppose the price demand curve is P=$20-Q, where P is price and Q is quantity. Also suppose the price supply curve is P=$4+Q. At what price and quantity will the good be sold?" The [[Economics Lecture Two|lecture]] does not address how to work with these equations. Are we supposed to graph them using the price as the slope and Q as the y intercept? ~ [[User:SharonS|SharonS]] 17:55, 16 February 2007 (EST)<br />
<br />
:Sharon, we can expect the good to be sold where supply equals demand. If supply were greater than demand, then the price would be lowered to sell the surplus. If supply were less than demand, then the price would be raised to increase profits.<br />
<br />
:You can find where supply equals demand either by graphing the supply and demand curves and seeing where they intersect, or by solving the two equations to find the common values of P and Q through use of algebra.<br />
<br />
:Hope that helps!--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:29, 16 February 2007 (EST)<br />
<br />
:P.S. Just as in class and in the [[Economics Lecture Two|lecture]], '''P (price) is graphed using the y-axis, and Q (quantity) is graphed using the x-axis'''. --[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:49, 17 February 2007 (EST)<br />
<br />
:Thank you! I didn't think of finding the common values of P and Q using algebra. Solving the equations with algebra gives the answers for P and Q in dollars. Should I just take the dollar sign off the number I get for Q and treat that as the quantity sold? ~ [[User:SharonS|SharonS]] 10:30, 17 February 2007 (EST)<br />
<br />
::Yes, just remove the dollar sign. There is always a mismatch in units in graphing Price (in dollars) as a function of Quantity (a non-dollar variable)--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:37, 17 February 2007 (EST).<br />
<br />
I am a bit confused with problem four in [[Economics Lecture Two|assignment two]]. The question reads:<br />
:"Suppose 1000 persons in a town each have the following weekly demands for gas, and the gas stations have the following weekly supplies:<br />
<br />
:Gallons Demand Price/gallon Supply Price/gallon<br />
:10 $2.50 $.50<br />
:20 $2 $.75<br />
:30 $1 $1<br />
:40 $.75 $1.50<br />
<br />
:(A) What is the price and overall quantity of gas sold each week?<br />
:(B) Suppose Congress declares war and imposes a price control of $.75 per gallon. At what price and overall quantity will gas sell each week?"<br />
<br />
I don't understand what is meant by the first sentence. Do a thousand people need ten gallons, a thousand need 20 gallons and so on, or are there only a thousand people, roughly a quarter of which will need each quantity? ~ [[User:SharonS|SharonS]] 13:15, 19 February 2007 (EST)<br />
<br />
:REPLY: Good question, Sharon. "Suppose 1000 persons in a town '''each''' have the following weekly demands for gas ..." means "'''each'''" person has the expressed demand (and likewise, the supply is for each). As always, the key is to find where supply meets demand, or where the supply and demand curves intersect.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:25, 19 February 2007 (EST)<br />
<br />
:Thank you! I think I've got it now.<font color=green> ~ [[User:SharonS|SharonS]] 16:54, 19 February 2007 (EST)</font><br />
<br />
Hi Mr. Schlafly!! On the homework for this week on question #2 you ask at what quantity the goods will be sold at on the curve. How do you label the quantity? I know with the price you would obviously label it as dollars, but do you do the same for quantity? Thanks. -User:kevin51292<br />
<br />
:REPLY: Great question, Kevin. "Quantity" is expressed in the units of goods specified (e.g., gallons, pairs of shoes, candy bars, etc.). Where, as in question 2, no goods are specified, then you could simply say "units".--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:14, 20 February 2007 (EST)<br />
<br />
Hi Mr. Schlafly!! Thanks for the above answer, that really clarifies things. As I am doing my homework I came across another question that I had. On question #6, are you looking for the price at which the strangers want to buy all the tickets that the scalpers offer, or are you looking for the highest common price at which tickets could be sold? Because there are multiple common prices that would result in tickets being sold (anything ranging from $8 to $15). [[User:kevin51292]]<br />
<br />
Kevin, assume that a common price (a "market price") is used for all sales.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:38, 20 February 2007 (EST)<br />
<br />
Hi Mr. Schlafly!! On question #3 of this week's homework you talk about an increase of 90% when the original number is 4 units of utility. Am I right to assume that the 90% increase is really 190% of the original number (4)? Thanks.<br />
<br />
== Prior discussion unrelated to homework ==<br />
<br />
:1) How does economic theory explain why anyone ever gives anything but money as a gift?<br />
<br />
:If someone gives me (say) ''The New Annotated Sherlock Holmes: The Complete Short Stories'' I might be pleased, but if someone gave me $95 I could ''buy'' ''The New Annotated Sherlock Holmes: The Complete Short Stories,'' in which case I would be just as pleased. Or, I might use the money to buy something different which I liked better. Or, I might know of a place to buy it at a discount, in which case I could have my book and extra money, too.<br />
<br />
:If someone gives me money, the ''worst case'' is that I do not know of anything that would please me more than the intended gift. In every other case, I can do better with the money than with the gift. Therefore, it would seem that the economist's "rational man" would always prefer to give and receive the money. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 15:51, 8 February 2007 (EST)<br />
<br />
<br />
The "rational man" is not merely interesdted in money but in total utility (the economic term for overall satisfaction); he might get more utility by reciving a gift that he knows was specially chosen for him by the giver than from a cash gift that has no personal meaning. Likewise he would get utility from giving a meaningful gift. In fact, if it ''were'' simply about money the "rational man" probably would not be giving at all!<br />
<br />
--[[User:BenjaminS|BenjaminS]] 12:38, 9 February 2007 (EST)<br />
<br />
Good point Ben. Also, remember that money really has no inherent value- it must be exchanged before it is useful to anyone except perhaps a coin collector. Thus, by giving someone a useful item as a gift rather than money, you are sparing the receiver of the gift the transaction costs involved in exchanging money for that item. So if we assume (1) that the giver knows what gift the reciever wants, (2) that the reciever would consider it a chore to take the neccesary steps to obtain the gift, and (3) that the giver will not mind, or perhaps even enjoy, taking those same steps, then the traditional mode of gift giving becomes economically rational. <br />
-Chris J<br />
<br />
:2) Consider a company whose stock pays no dividends, and whose management's states that their intention is not to pay them in the future. The present value of a future stream of zero dividends is zero. How does economic theory explain why people are willing to buy such stock? [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 16:39, 8 February 2007 (EST)<br />
<br />
There are two scenario's that come to mind. The straightforward explanation is that the firm is a charitable organization, and the investors by stock in view of the beneficial effect the firm has on their community. The second explanation is that the economic activity of the aforementioned firm is beneficial to the investor. For example, small business owners in a certain town might be willing to invest in a ski-mountain, golf resort, amusement park etc. moving in their town even if it were not directly profitable, if it would attract tourists and increase the demand for their own goods and services.<br />
-Chris J<br />
<br />
::Well, that wasn't all that hypothetical an example. Many stocks pay no dividends. For example, that described Digital Equipment Corporation for at least three decades; it was no charity; and investors were willing to pay quite a lot of money for Digital shares. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 21:05, 16 February 2007 (EST)<br />
<br />
::The stock gets it's value from the total value of the company divided by the number of outstanding shares. Dividends are the profits made by a company that are not reinvested in the company as retained earnings. The only way to take money out of a company is to pay all the shareholders proportionally. So if the company were sold for cash for example, each shareholder would get a portion of the sale in proportion to how many shares they have. By leaving the profits in the company the value of the company increases, increasing the value of the stock. The stock price and company value match up because of two forces acting on the stock price: 1) If the stock price is lower than the value of the company then someone could buy enough of the stock to sell the company for cash and make more than he paid for the stock. 2) If the stock price his higher than the value of the company, then the market demand for the stock decreases because you wont be able to get that amount of money out of the company and the price drops accordingly.</div>Kevin51292https://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Economics&diff=14568Talk:Economics2007-02-20T21:18:56Z<p>Kevin51292: /* Enter new questions here: */</p>
<hr />
<div>== Enter new questions here: ==<br />
<br />
Question two in [[Economics Lecture Two|assignment two]] says: "Suppose the price demand curve is P=$20-Q, where P is price and Q is quantity. Also suppose the price supply curve is P=$4+Q. At what price and quantity will the good be sold?" The [[Economics Lecture Two|lecture]] does not address how to work with these equations. Are we supposed to graph them using the price as the slope and Q as the y intercept? ~ [[User:SharonS|SharonS]] 17:55, 16 February 2007 (EST)<br />
<br />
:Sharon, we can expect the good to be sold where supply equals demand. If supply were greater than demand, then the price would be lowered to sell the surplus. If supply were less than demand, then the price would be raised to increase profits.<br />
<br />
:You can find where supply equals demand either by graphing the supply and demand curves and seeing where they intersect, or by solving the two equations to find the common values of P and Q through use of algebra.<br />
<br />
:Hope that helps!--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:29, 16 February 2007 (EST)<br />
<br />
:P.S. Just as in class and in the [[Economics Lecture Two|lecture]], '''P (price) is graphed using the y-axis, and Q (quantity) is graphed using the x-axis'''. --[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:49, 17 February 2007 (EST)<br />
<br />
:Thank you! I didn't think of finding the common values of P and Q using algebra. Solving the equations with algebra gives the answers for P and Q in dollars. Should I just take the dollar sign off the number I get for Q and treat that as the quantity sold? ~ [[User:SharonS|SharonS]] 10:30, 17 February 2007 (EST)<br />
<br />
::Yes, just remove the dollar sign. There is always a mismatch in units in graphing Price (in dollars) as a function of Quantity (a non-dollar variable)--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:37, 17 February 2007 (EST).<br />
<br />
I am a bit confused with problem four in [[Economics Lecture Two|assignment two]]. The question reads:<br />
:"Suppose 1000 persons in a town each have the following weekly demands for gas, and the gas stations have the following weekly supplies:<br />
<br />
:Gallons Demand Price/gallon Supply Price/gallon<br />
:10 $2.50 $.50<br />
:20 $2 $.75<br />
:30 $1 $1<br />
:40 $.75 $1.50<br />
<br />
:(A) What is the price and overall quantity of gas sold each week?<br />
:(B) Suppose Congress declares war and imposes a price control of $.75 per gallon. At what price and overall quantity will gas sell each week?"<br />
<br />
I don't understand what is meant by the first sentence. Do a thousand people need ten gallons, a thousand need 20 gallons and so on, or are there only a thousand people, roughly a quarter of which will need each quantity? ~ [[User:SharonS|SharonS]] 13:15, 19 February 2007 (EST)<br />
<br />
:REPLY: Good question, Sharon. "Suppose 1000 persons in a town '''each''' have the following weekly demands for gas ..." means "'''each'''" person has the expressed demand (and likewise, the supply is for each). As always, the key is to find where supply meets demand, or where the supply and demand curves intersect.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:25, 19 February 2007 (EST)<br />
<br />
:Thank you! I think I've got it now.<font color=green> ~ [[User:SharonS|SharonS]] 16:54, 19 February 2007 (EST)</font><br />
<br />
Hi Mr. Schlafly!! On the homework for this week on question #2 you ask at what quantity the goods will be sold at on the curve. How do you label the quantity? I know with the price you would obviously label it as dollars, but do you do the same for quantity? Thanks. -User:kevin51292<br />
<br />
:REPLY: Great question, Kevin. "Quantity" is expressed in the units of goods specified (e.g., gallons, pairs of shoes, candy bars, etc.). Where, as in question 2, no goods are specified, then you could simply say "units".--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:14, 20 February 2007 (EST)<br />
<br />
Hi Mr. Schlafly!! Thanks for the above answer, that really clarifies things. As I am doing my homework I came across another question that I had. On question #6, are you looking for the price at which the strangers want to buy all the tickets that the scalpers offer, or are you looking for the highest common price at which tickets could be sold? Because there are multiple common prices that would result in tickets being sold (anything ranging from $8 to $15). [[User:kevin51292]]<br />
<br />
== Prior discussion ==<br />
<br />
:1) How does economic theory explain why anyone ever gives anything but money as a gift?<br />
<br />
:If someone gives me (say) ''The New Annotated Sherlock Holmes: The Complete Short Stories'' I might be pleased, but if someone gave me $95 I could ''buy'' ''The New Annotated Sherlock Holmes: The Complete Short Stories,'' in which case I would be just as pleased. Or, I might use the money to buy something different which I liked better. Or, I might know of a place to buy it at a discount, in which case I could have my book and extra money, too.<br />
<br />
:If someone gives me money, the ''worst case'' is that I do not know of anything that would please me more than the intended gift. In every other case, I can do better with the money than with the gift. Therefore, it would seem that the economist's "rational man" would always prefer to give and receive the money. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 15:51, 8 February 2007 (EST)<br />
<br />
<br />
The "rational man" is not merely interesdted in money but in total utility (the economic term for overall satisfaction); he might get more utility by reciving a gift that he knows was specially chosen for him by the giver than from a cash gift that has no personal meaning. Likewise he would get utility from giving a meaningful gift. In fact, if it ''were'' simply about money the "rational man" probably would not be giving at all!<br />
<br />
--[[User:BenjaminS|BenjaminS]] 12:38, 9 February 2007 (EST)<br />
<br />
Good point Ben. Also, remember that money really has no inherent value- it must be exchanged before it is useful to anyone except perhaps a coin collector. Thus, by giving someone a useful item as a gift rather than money, you are sparing the receiver of the gift the transaction costs involved in exchanging money for that item. So if we assume (1) that the giver knows what gift the reciever wants, (2) that the reciever would consider it a chore to take the neccesary steps to obtain the gift, and (3) that the giver will not mind, or perhaps even enjoy, taking those same steps, then the traditional mode of gift giving becomes economically rational. <br />
-Chris J<br />
<br />
:2) Consider a company whose stock pays no dividends, and whose management's states that their intention is not to pay them in the future. The present value of a future stream of zero dividends is zero. How does economic theory explain why people are willing to buy such stock? [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 16:39, 8 February 2007 (EST)<br />
<br />
There are two scenario's that come to mind. The straightforward explanation is that the firm is a charitable organization, and the investors by stock in view of the beneficial effect the firm has on thier community. The second explanation is that the economic activity of the aforementioned firm is beneficial to the investor. For example, small business owners in a certain town might be willing to invest in a ski-mountain, golf resort, amusement park etc. moving in thier town even if it were not directly profitable, if it would attract tourists and increase the demand for thier own goods and services.<br />
-Chris J<br />
<br />
::Well, that wasn't all that hypothetical an example. Many stocks pay no dividends. For example, that described Digital Equipment Corporation for at least three decades; it was no charity; and investors were willing to pay quite a lot of money for Digital shares. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 21:05, 16 February 2007 (EST)</div>Kevin51292https://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Economics&diff=14567Talk:Economics2007-02-20T21:18:08Z<p>Kevin51292: /* Enter new questions here: */</p>
<hr />
<div>== Enter new questions here: ==<br />
<br />
Question two in [[Economics Lecture Two|assignment two]] says: "Suppose the price demand curve is P=$20-Q, where P is price and Q is quantity. Also suppose the price supply curve is P=$4+Q. At what price and quantity will the good be sold?" The [[Economics Lecture Two|lecture]] does not address how to work with these equations. Are we supposed to graph them using the price as the slope and Q as the y intercept? ~ [[User:SharonS|SharonS]] 17:55, 16 February 2007 (EST)<br />
<br />
:Sharon, we can expect the good to be sold where supply equals demand. If supply were greater than demand, then the price would be lowered to sell the surplus. If supply were less than demand, then the price would be raised to increase profits.<br />
<br />
:You can find where supply equals demand either by graphing the supply and demand curves and seeing where they intersect, or by solving the two equations to find the common values of P and Q through use of algebra.<br />
<br />
:Hope that helps!--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:29, 16 February 2007 (EST)<br />
<br />
:P.S. Just as in class and in the [[Economics Lecture Two|lecture]], '''P (price) is graphed using the y-axis, and Q (quantity) is graphed using the x-axis'''. --[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:49, 17 February 2007 (EST)<br />
<br />
:Thank you! I didn't think of finding the common values of P and Q using algebra. Solving the equations with algebra gives the answers for P and Q in dollars. Should I just take the dollar sign off the number I get for Q and treat that as the quantity sold? ~ [[User:SharonS|SharonS]] 10:30, 17 February 2007 (EST)<br />
<br />
::Yes, just remove the dollar sign. There is always a mismatch in units in graphing Price (in dollars) as a function of Quantity (a non-dollar variable)--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:37, 17 February 2007 (EST).<br />
<br />
I am a bit confused with problem four in [[Economics Lecture Two|assignment two]]. The question reads:<br />
:"Suppose 1000 persons in a town each have the following weekly demands for gas, and the gas stations have the following weekly supplies:<br />
<br />
:Gallons Demand Price/gallon Supply Price/gallon<br />
:10 $2.50 $.50<br />
:20 $2 $.75<br />
:30 $1 $1<br />
:40 $.75 $1.50<br />
<br />
:(A) What is the price and overall quantity of gas sold each week?<br />
:(B) Suppose Congress declares war and imposes a price control of $.75 per gallon. At what price and overall quantity will gas sell each week?"<br />
<br />
I don't understand what is meant by the first sentence. Do a thousand people need ten gallons, a thousand need 20 gallons and so on, or are there only a thousand people, roughly a quarter of which will need each quantity? ~ [[User:SharonS|SharonS]] 13:15, 19 February 2007 (EST)<br />
<br />
:REPLY: Good question, Sharon. "Suppose 1000 persons in a town '''each''' have the following weekly demands for gas ..." means "'''each'''" person has the expressed demand (and likewise, the supply is for each). As always, the key is to find where supply meets demand, or where the supply and demand curves intersect.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:25, 19 February 2007 (EST)<br />
<br />
:Thank you! I think I've got it now.<font color=green> ~ [[User:SharonS|SharonS]] 16:54, 19 February 2007 (EST)</font><br />
<br />
Hi Mr. Schlafly!! On the homework for this week on question #2 you ask at what quantity the goods will be sold at on the curve. How do you label the quantity? I know with the price you would obviously label it as dollars, but do you do the same for quantity? Thanks. -User:kevin51292<br />
<br />
:REPLY: Great question, Kevin. "Quantity" is expressed in the units of goods specified (e.g., gallons, pairs of shoes, candy bars, etc.). Where, as in question 2, no goods are specified, then you could simply say "units".--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:14, 20 February 2007 (EST)<br />
<br />
Hi Mr. Schlafly!! Thanks for the above answer, that really clarifies things. As I am doing my homework I came across another question that I had. On question #6, are you looking for the price at which the strangers want to buy all the tickets that the scalpers offer, or are you looking for the highest common price at which tickets could be sold? Because there are multiple common prices that would result in tickets being sold (anything ranging from $8 to $15).<br />
<br />
== Prior discussion ==<br />
<br />
:1) How does economic theory explain why anyone ever gives anything but money as a gift?<br />
<br />
:If someone gives me (say) ''The New Annotated Sherlock Holmes: The Complete Short Stories'' I might be pleased, but if someone gave me $95 I could ''buy'' ''The New Annotated Sherlock Holmes: The Complete Short Stories,'' in which case I would be just as pleased. Or, I might use the money to buy something different which I liked better. Or, I might know of a place to buy it at a discount, in which case I could have my book and extra money, too.<br />
<br />
:If someone gives me money, the ''worst case'' is that I do not know of anything that would please me more than the intended gift. In every other case, I can do better with the money than with the gift. Therefore, it would seem that the economist's "rational man" would always prefer to give and receive the money. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 15:51, 8 February 2007 (EST)<br />
<br />
<br />
The "rational man" is not merely interesdted in money but in total utility (the economic term for overall satisfaction); he might get more utility by reciving a gift that he knows was specially chosen for him by the giver than from a cash gift that has no personal meaning. Likewise he would get utility from giving a meaningful gift. In fact, if it ''were'' simply about money the "rational man" probably would not be giving at all!<br />
<br />
--[[User:BenjaminS|BenjaminS]] 12:38, 9 February 2007 (EST)<br />
<br />
Good point Ben. Also, remember that money really has no inherent value- it must be exchanged before it is useful to anyone except perhaps a coin collector. Thus, by giving someone a useful item as a gift rather than money, you are sparing the receiver of the gift the transaction costs involved in exchanging money for that item. So if we assume (1) that the giver knows what gift the reciever wants, (2) that the reciever would consider it a chore to take the neccesary steps to obtain the gift, and (3) that the giver will not mind, or perhaps even enjoy, taking those same steps, then the traditional mode of gift giving becomes economically rational. <br />
-Chris J<br />
<br />
:2) Consider a company whose stock pays no dividends, and whose management's states that their intention is not to pay them in the future. The present value of a future stream of zero dividends is zero. How does economic theory explain why people are willing to buy such stock? [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 16:39, 8 February 2007 (EST)<br />
<br />
There are two scenario's that come to mind. The straightforward explanation is that the firm is a charitable organization, and the investors by stock in view of the beneficial effect the firm has on thier community. The second explanation is that the economic activity of the aforementioned firm is beneficial to the investor. For example, small business owners in a certain town might be willing to invest in a ski-mountain, golf resort, amusement park etc. moving in thier town even if it were not directly profitable, if it would attract tourists and increase the demand for thier own goods and services.<br />
-Chris J<br />
<br />
::Well, that wasn't all that hypothetical an example. Many stocks pay no dividends. For example, that described Digital Equipment Corporation for at least three decades; it was no charity; and investors were willing to pay quite a lot of money for Digital shares. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 21:05, 16 February 2007 (EST)</div>Kevin51292https://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Economics&diff=14566Talk:Economics2007-02-20T21:17:41Z<p>Kevin51292: /* Enter new questions here: */</p>
<hr />
<div>== Enter new questions here: ==<br />
<br />
Question two in [[Economics Lecture Two|assignment two]] says: "Suppose the price demand curve is P=$20-Q, where P is price and Q is quantity. Also suppose the price supply curve is P=$4+Q. At what price and quantity will the good be sold?" The [[Economics Lecture Two|lecture]] does not address how to work with these equations. Are we supposed to graph them using the price as the slope and Q as the y intercept? ~ [[User:SharonS|SharonS]] 17:55, 16 February 2007 (EST)<br />
<br />
:Sharon, we can expect the good to be sold where supply equals demand. If supply were greater than demand, then the price would be lowered to sell the surplus. If supply were less than demand, then the price would be raised to increase profits.<br />
<br />
:You can find where supply equals demand either by graphing the supply and demand curves and seeing where they intersect, or by solving the two equations to find the common values of P and Q through use of algebra.<br />
<br />
:Hope that helps!--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:29, 16 February 2007 (EST)<br />
<br />
:P.S. Just as in class and in the [[Economics Lecture Two|lecture]], '''P (price) is graphed using the y-axis, and Q (quantity) is graphed using the x-axis'''. --[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:49, 17 February 2007 (EST)<br />
<br />
:Thank you! I didn't think of finding the common values of P and Q using algebra. Solving the equations with algebra gives the answers for P and Q in dollars. Should I just take the dollar sign off the number I get for Q and treat that as the quantity sold? ~ [[User:SharonS|SharonS]] 10:30, 17 February 2007 (EST)<br />
<br />
::Yes, just remove the dollar sign. There is always a mismatch in units in graphing Price (in dollars) as a function of Quantity (a non-dollar variable)--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:37, 17 February 2007 (EST).<br />
<br />
I am a bit confused with problem four in [[Economics Lecture Two|assignment two]]. The question reads:<br />
:"Suppose 1000 persons in a town each have the following weekly demands for gas, and the gas stations have the following weekly supplies:<br />
<br />
:Gallons Demand Price/gallon Supply Price/gallon<br />
:10 $2.50 $.50<br />
:20 $2 $.75<br />
:30 $1 $1<br />
:40 $.75 $1.50<br />
<br />
:(A) What is the price and overall quantity of gas sold each week?<br />
:(B) Suppose Congress declares war and imposes a price control of $.75 per gallon. At what price and overall quantity will gas sell each week?"<br />
<br />
I don't understand what is meant by the first sentence. Do a thousand people need ten gallons, a thousand need 20 gallons and so on, or are there only a thousand people, roughly a quarter of which will need each quantity? ~ [[User:SharonS|SharonS]] 13:15, 19 February 2007 (EST)<br />
<br />
:REPLY: Good question, Sharon. "Suppose 1000 persons in a town '''each''' have the following weekly demands for gas ..." means "'''each'''" person has the expressed demand (and likewise, the supply is for each). As always, the key is to find where supply meets demand, or where the supply and demand curves intersect.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:25, 19 February 2007 (EST)<br />
<br />
:Thank you! I think I've got it now.<font color=green> ~ [[User:SharonS|SharonS]] 16:54, 19 February 2007 (EST)</font><br />
<br />
Hi Mr. Schlafly!! On the homework for this week on question #2 you ask at what quantity the goods will be sold at on the curve. How do you label the quantity? I know with the price you would obviously label it as dollars, but do you do the same for quantity? Thanks. -User:kevin51292<br />
<br />
:REPLY: Great question, Kevin. "Quantity" is expressed in the units of goods specified (e.g., gallons, pairs of shoes, candy bars, etc.). Where, as in question 2, no goods are specified, then you could simply say "units".--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:14, 20 February 2007 (EST)<br />
<br />
Hi Mr. Schlafly!! Thanks for the above answer, that really clarifies things. As I am doing my homework I came across another question. On question #6, are you looking for the price at which the strangers want to buy all the tickets that the scalpers offer, or are you looking for the highest common price at which tickets could be sold? Because there are multiple common prices that would result in tickets being sold (anything ranging from $8 to $15).<br />
<br />
== Prior discussion ==<br />
<br />
:1) How does economic theory explain why anyone ever gives anything but money as a gift?<br />
<br />
:If someone gives me (say) ''The New Annotated Sherlock Holmes: The Complete Short Stories'' I might be pleased, but if someone gave me $95 I could ''buy'' ''The New Annotated Sherlock Holmes: The Complete Short Stories,'' in which case I would be just as pleased. Or, I might use the money to buy something different which I liked better. Or, I might know of a place to buy it at a discount, in which case I could have my book and extra money, too.<br />
<br />
:If someone gives me money, the ''worst case'' is that I do not know of anything that would please me more than the intended gift. In every other case, I can do better with the money than with the gift. Therefore, it would seem that the economist's "rational man" would always prefer to give and receive the money. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 15:51, 8 February 2007 (EST)<br />
<br />
<br />
The "rational man" is not merely interesdted in money but in total utility (the economic term for overall satisfaction); he might get more utility by reciving a gift that he knows was specially chosen for him by the giver than from a cash gift that has no personal meaning. Likewise he would get utility from giving a meaningful gift. In fact, if it ''were'' simply about money the "rational man" probably would not be giving at all!<br />
<br />
--[[User:BenjaminS|BenjaminS]] 12:38, 9 February 2007 (EST)<br />
<br />
Good point Ben. Also, remember that money really has no inherent value- it must be exchanged before it is useful to anyone except perhaps a coin collector. Thus, by giving someone a useful item as a gift rather than money, you are sparing the receiver of the gift the transaction costs involved in exchanging money for that item. So if we assume (1) that the giver knows what gift the reciever wants, (2) that the reciever would consider it a chore to take the neccesary steps to obtain the gift, and (3) that the giver will not mind, or perhaps even enjoy, taking those same steps, then the traditional mode of gift giving becomes economically rational. <br />
-Chris J<br />
<br />
:2) Consider a company whose stock pays no dividends, and whose management's states that their intention is not to pay them in the future. The present value of a future stream of zero dividends is zero. How does economic theory explain why people are willing to buy such stock? [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 16:39, 8 February 2007 (EST)<br />
<br />
There are two scenario's that come to mind. The straightforward explanation is that the firm is a charitable organization, and the investors by stock in view of the beneficial effect the firm has on thier community. The second explanation is that the economic activity of the aforementioned firm is beneficial to the investor. For example, small business owners in a certain town might be willing to invest in a ski-mountain, golf resort, amusement park etc. moving in thier town even if it were not directly profitable, if it would attract tourists and increase the demand for thier own goods and services.<br />
-Chris J<br />
<br />
::Well, that wasn't all that hypothetical an example. Many stocks pay no dividends. For example, that described Digital Equipment Corporation for at least three decades; it was no charity; and investors were willing to pay quite a lot of money for Digital shares. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 21:05, 16 February 2007 (EST)</div>Kevin51292https://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Zhou_Enlai&diff=12613Zhou Enlai2007-02-01T02:04:25Z<p>Kevin51292: </p>
<hr />
<div>Zhou Enlai (1898–1976) was a leading communist in China who served as Premier of the People's Republic of China from 1949 until his death. He also served as China's foreign minister from 1949 to 1958. Zhou was portrayed as a selfless hero to the Chinese people. He began to end China's isolation from the world when he invited an American table tennis team to tour [[China]] in 1971.</div>Kevin51292https://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Modern_Era_Terms_S&diff=11808Modern Era Terms S2007-01-25T11:41:36Z<p>Kevin51292: </p>
<hr />
<div>[[Modern Era Terms A|A]]-[[Modern Era Terms B|B]]-[[Modern Era Terms C|C]]-[[Modern Era Terms D|D]]-[[Modern Era Terms E|E]]-[[Modern Era Terms F|F]]-[[Modern Era Terms G|G]]-[[Modern Era Terms H|H]]-[[Modern Era Terms I|I]]-[[Modern Era Terms J|J]]-[[Modern Era Terms K|K]]-[[Modern Era Terms L|L]]-[[Modern Era Terms M|M]]-[[Modern Era Terms N|N]]-[[Modern Era Terms O|O]]-[[Modern Era Terms P|P]]-[[Modern Era Terms Q|Q]]-[[Modern Era Terms R|R]]-[[Modern Era Terms S|S]]-[[Modern Era Terms T|T]]-[[Modern Era Terms U|U]]-[[Modern Era Terms V|V]]-[[Modern Era Terms W|W]]-[[Modern Era Terms X|X]]-[[Modern Era Terms Y|Y]]-[[Modern Era Terms Z|Z]]<br />
<br />
<br />
[[Anwar Sadat|Sadat, Anwar]]<br />
<br />
<br />
[[Salt March]]<br />
<br />
<br />
[[Sandinistas]]<br />
<br />
<br />
[[Margaret Sanger|Sanger, Margaret]]<br />
<br />
<br />
[[Jean Paul Sartre|Sartre, Jean Paul]]<br />
<br />
<br />
[[satellite nation]]<br />
<br />
<br />
[[Erwin Schrodinger|Schrodinger, Erwin]]<br />
<br />
<br />
[[scorched-earth policy]]<br />
<br />
<br />
[[Second Battle of the Marne]]<br />
<br />
<br />
[[Security Council]]<br />
<br />
<br />
[[Haile Selassie|Selassie, Haile]]<br />
<br />
<br />
[[Sharpeville Massacre]]<br />
<br />
<br />
[[Nawaz Sharif|Sharif, Nawaz]]<br />
<br />
<br />
[[Yuan Shiakai|Shiakai, Yuan]]<br />
<br />
<br />
[[Siegfried Line]]<br />
<br />
<br />
[[Sinai Peninsula]]<br />
<br />
<br />
[[sitzkrieg]]<br />
<br />
<br />
[[Six-Day War]]<br />
<br />
<br />
[[Solidarity]]<br />
<br />
<br />
[[Somme]]<br />
<br />
<br />
[[soviet]]<br />
<br />
<br />
[[Soyuz]]<br />
<br />
<br />
[[space shuttle]]<br />
<br />
<br />
[[space station]]<br />
<br />
<br />
[[Spanish Flu]]<br />
<br />
<br />
[[Soviet Union]]<br />
<br />
<br />
[[soviets]]<br />
<br />
<br />
[[SS]]<br />
<br />
<br />
[[Joseph Stalin|Stalin, Joseph]]<br />
<br />
<br />
[[stem cell research]]<br />
<br />
<br />
[[Storm Troopers]]<br />
<br />
<br />
[[Igor Stravinsky|Stavinsky, Igor]]<br />
<br />
<br />
[[Strategic Defense Initiative]]<br />
<br />
<br />
[[stream of consciousness]]<br />
<br />
<br />
[[Gustav Stresemann|Stresemann, Gustav]]<br />
<br />
<br />
[[Sudetenland]]<br />
<br />
<br />
[[Suez Canal]]<br />
<br />
<br />
[[Suharto]]<br />
<br />
<br />
[[Sukarno]]<br />
<br />
<br />
[[Kim II Sung|Sung, Kim II]]<br />
<br />
<br />
[[Sun Yixian]]<br />
<br />
<br />
[[surrealism]]<br />
<br />
<br />
[[Swastika]]</div>Kevin51292https://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Modern_Era_Terms_A&diff=11582Modern Era Terms A2007-01-23T18:22:33Z<p>Kevin51292: </p>
<hr />
<div>[[Modern Era Terms A|A]]-[[Modern Era Terms B|B]]-[[Modern Era Terms C|C]]-[[Modern Era Terms D|D]]-[[Modern Era Terms E|E]]-[[Modern Era Terms F|F]]-[[Modern Era Terms G|G]]-[[Modern Era Terms H|H]]-[[Modern Era Terms I|I]]-[[Modern Era Terms J|J]]-[[Modern Era Terms K|K]]-[[Modern Era Terms L|L]]-[[Modern Era Terms M|M]]-[[Modern Era Terms N|N]]-[[Modern Era Terms O|O]]-[[Modern Era Terms P|P]]-[[Modern Era Terms Q|Q]]-[[Modern Era Terms R|R]]-[[Modern Era Terms S|S]]-[[Modern Era Terms T|T]]-[[Modern Era Terms U|U]]-[[Modern Era Terms V|V]]-[[Modern Era Terms W|W]]-[[Modern Era Terms X|X]]-[[Modern Era Terms Y|Y]]-[[Modern Era Terms Z|Z]]<br />
<br />
<br />
[[Abd al-Aziz Ibn Saud]]<br />
<br />
<br />
[[Affirmative Action]]<br />
<br />
<br />
[[Afrika Korps]]<br />
<br />
<br />
[[Afrikaner]]<br />
<br />
<br />
[[Alexander II]]<br />
<br />
<br />
[[Alexander III]]<br />
<br />
<br />
[[Allied Powers]]<br />
<br />
<br />
[[Al Qaeda]]<br />
<br />
<br />
[[Amelia Earhart]]<br />
<br />
<br />
[[America]]<br />
<br />
<br />
[[Amritsar Massacre]]<br />
<br />
<br />
[[Anschluss]]<br />
<br />
<br />
[[apartheid]]<br />
<br />
<br />
[[Apollo]]<br />
<br />
<br />
[[appeasement]]<br />
<br />
<br />
[[Benigno Aquino|Aquino, Benigno]]<br />
<br />
<br />
[[Corazon Aquino|Aquino, Corazon]]<br />
<br />
<br />
[[Yasir Arafat|Arafat, Yasir]]<br />
<br />
<br />
[[Armistice Day]] <br />
<br />
<br />
[[Neil Armstrong|Armstrong, Neil]]<br />
<br />
<br />
[[Aswan Dam]]<br />
<br />
<br />
[[Atlantic Charter]]<br />
<br />
<br />
[[Clement Atlee|Atlee, Clement]]<br />
<br />
<br />
[[Atoll]]<br />
<br />
<br />
[[Auschwitz]]<br />
<br />
<br />
[[Axis Powers]]<br />
<br />
<br />
[[ayatollah]]</div>Kevin51292https://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Truman_Doctrine&diff=11430Truman Doctrine2007-01-22T20:35:28Z<p>Kevin51292: </p>
<hr />
<div>The Truman Doctrine was proclaimed on March 12, 1947 by President [[Harry Truman]]. The doctrine was part of an effort to prevent the continued expansion of [[Union of Soviet Socialist Republics]] ("U.S.S.R.") power, particularly in the Near East, where the nations of Greece, Turkey, and the Arab Nations were threatened by Soviet aggression. Before the proclamation of the Truman Doctrine, only British troops and money were blocking the U.S.S.R.'s expansion in this region. Using this doctrine, Truman was able to approve the sending of $400 million of financial aid and troops to those threatened countries. This move also provided relief to the English soldiers and treasury.</div>Kevin51292https://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Modern_Era_Terms_H&diff=11413Modern Era Terms H2007-01-22T20:16:19Z<p>Kevin51292: </p>
<hr />
<div>[[Modern Era Terms A|A]]-[[Modern Era Terms B|B]]-[[Modern Era Terms C|C]]-[[Modern Era Terms D|D]]-[[Modern Era Terms E|E]]-[[Modern Era Terms F|F]]-[[Modern Era Terms G|G]]-[[Modern Era Terms H|H]]-[[Modern Era Terms I|I]]-[[Modern Era Terms J|J]]-[[Modern Era Terms K|K]]-[[Modern Era Terms L|L]]-[[Modern Era Terms M|M]]-[[Modern Era Terms N|N]]-[[Modern Era Terms O|O]]-[[Modern Era Terms P|P]]-[[Modern Era Terms Q|Q]]-[[Modern Era Terms R|R]]-[[Modern Era Terms S|S]]-[[Modern Era Terms T|T]]-[[Modern Era Terms U|U]]-[[Modern Era Terms V|V]]-[[Modern Era Terms W|W]]-[[Modern Era Terms X|X]]-[[Modern Era Terms Y|Y]]-[[Modern Era Terms Z|Z]]<br />
<br />
<br />
[[Vaclav Havel|Havel, Vaclav]]<br />
<br />
<br />
[[Hawley-Smoot Tariff]]<br />
<br />
<br />
[[H-bomb]]<br />
<br />
<br />
[[William Randolph Hearst|Hearst, William Randolph]]<br />
<br />
<br />
[[Werner Heisenberg|Heisenberg, Werner]]<br />
<br />
<br />
[[Helsinki Accords]]<br />
<br />
<br />
[[Ernest Hemingway|Hemingway, Ernest]]<br />
<br />
<br />
[[Theodor Herzl|Herzl, Theodor]]<br />
<br />
<br />
[[Heinrich Himmler| Himmler, Heinrich]]<br />
<br />
<br />
[[Adolf Hitler|Hitler, Adolf]]<br />
<br />
<br />
[[Hitler Youth]]<br />
<br />
<br />
[[Emperor Hirohito|Hirohito, Emperor]]<br />
<br />
<br />
[[Herbert Hoover|Hoover, Herbert]]<br />
<br />
<br />
[[Holocaust]]<br />
<br />
<br />
[[homeland]]<br />
<br />
<br />
[[Erich Honecker|Honecker, Erich]]<br />
<br />
<br />
[[Hubble Telescope]]<br />
<br />
<br />
[[human cloning]]<br />
<br />
<br />
[[Saddam Hussein|Hussein, Saddam]]<br />
<br />
<br />
[[Hutu tribe]]</div>Kevin51292https://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Modern_Era_Terms_E&diff=11410Modern Era Terms E2007-01-22T20:12:33Z<p>Kevin51292: </p>
<hr />
<div>[[Modern Era Terms A|A]]-[[Modern Era Terms B|B]]-[[Modern Era Terms C|C]]-[[Modern Era Terms D|D]]-[[Modern Era Terms E|E]]-[[Modern Era Terms F|F]]-[[Modern Era Terms G|G]]-[[Modern Era Terms H|H]]-[[Modern Era Terms I|I]]-[[Modern Era Terms J|J]]-[[Modern Era Terms K|K]]-[[Modern Era Terms L|L]]-[[Modern Era Terms M|M]]-[[Modern Era Terms N|N]]-[[Modern Era Terms O|O]]-[[Modern Era Terms P|P]]-[[Modern Era Terms Q|Q]]-[[Modern Era Terms R|R]]-[[Modern Era Terms S|S]]-[[Modern Era Terms T|T]]-[[Modern Era Terms U|U]]-[[Modern Era Terms V|V]]-[[Modern Era Terms W|W]]-[[Modern Era Terms X|X]]-[[Modern Era Terms Y|Y]]-[[Modern Era Terms Z|Z]]<br />
<br />
<br />
[[Amelia Earhart|Earhart, Amelia]]<br />
<br />
<br />
[[Arthur Eddington|Eddington, Arthur]]<br />
<br />
<br />
[[Albert Einstein|Einstein, Albert]]<br />
<br />
<br />
[[Dwight Eisenhower|Eisenhower, Dwight]]<br />
<br />
<br />
[[Zhou Enlai|Enlai, Zhou]]<br />
<br />
<br />
[[Enigma, The]]<br />
<br />
<br />
[[Equal Rights Amendment]]<br />
<br />
<br />
[[ethnic cleansing]]<br />
<br />
<br />
[[euro]]<br />
<br />
<br />
[[European Economic Community]]<br />
<br />
<br />
[[European Union]]<br />
<br />
<br />
[[existentialism]]<br />
<br />
<br />
[[expressionism]]<br />
<br />
<br />
[[external migration]]</div>Kevin51292https://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Modern_Era_Terms_E&diff=11408Modern Era Terms E2007-01-22T20:12:06Z<p>Kevin51292: </p>
<hr />
<div>[[Modern Era Terms A|A]]-[[Modern Era Terms B|B]]-[[Modern Era Terms C|C]]-[[Modern Era Terms D|D]]-[[Modern Era Terms E|E]]-[[Modern Era Terms F|F]]-[[Modern Era Terms G|G]]-[[Modern Era Terms H|H]]-[[Modern Era Terms I|I]]-[[Modern Era Terms J|J]]-[[Modern Era Terms K|K]]-[[Modern Era Terms L|L]]-[[Modern Era Terms M|M]]-[[Modern Era Terms N|N]]-[[Modern Era Terms O|O]]-[[Modern Era Terms P|P]]-[[Modern Era Terms Q|Q]]-[[Modern Era Terms R|R]]-[[Modern Era Terms S|S]]-[[Modern Era Terms T|T]]-[[Modern Era Terms U|U]]-[[Modern Era Terms V|V]]-[[Modern Era Terms W|W]]-[[Modern Era Terms X|X]]-[[Modern Era Terms Y|Y]]-[[Modern Era Terms Z|Z]]<br />
<br />
<br />
[[Amelia Earhart|Earhart, Amelia]]<br />
<br />
<br />
[[Arthur Eddington|Eddington, Arthur]]<br />
<br />
<br />
[[Albert Einstein|Einstein, Albert]]<br />
<br />
<br />
[[Dwight Eisenhower|Eisenhower, Dwight]]<br />
<br />
<br />
[[Zhou Enlai|Enlai, Zhou]]<br />
<br />
<br />
[[Enigma, The]]<br />
<br />
[[Equal Rights Amendment]]<br />
<br />
<br />
[[ethnic cleansing]]<br />
<br />
<br />
[[euro]]<br />
<br />
<br />
[[European Economic Community]]<br />
<br />
<br />
[[European Union]]<br />
<br />
<br />
[[existentialism]]<br />
<br />
<br />
[[expressionism]]<br />
<br />
<br />
[[external migration]]</div>Kevin51292https://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Collective_farming&diff=11401Collective farming2007-01-22T20:08:12Z<p>Kevin51292: </p>
<hr />
<div>Collective farming is when a government owns and plans a farm in a Communist country.</div>Kevin51292https://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Selim_the_Grim&diff=5821Selim the Grim2006-12-14T16:08:13Z<p>Kevin51292: </p>
<hr />
<div>A sultan of the Ottoman Empire in the 1500s.</div>Kevin51292https://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Red_Shirts&diff=5820Red Shirts2006-12-14T16:04:43Z<p>Kevin51292: </p>
<hr />
<div>A nationalistic group who was formed with the intention of eliminating foreign rule in Italy during the 19th century. This group was led by a man named Giuseppe Garibaldi.</div>Kevin51292https://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Pre_Modern_Terms_G&diff=5818Pre Modern Terms G2006-12-14T16:03:41Z<p>Kevin51292: </p>
<hr />
<div>[[Pre Modern Terms A|A]]-[[Pre Modern Terms B|B]]-[[Pre Modern Terms C|C]]-[[Pre Modern Terms D|D]]-[[Pre Modern Terms E|E]]-[[Pre Modern Terms F|F]]-[[Pre Modern Terms G|G]]-[[Pre Modern Terms H|H]]-[[Pre Modern Terms I|I]]-[[Pre Modern Terms J|J]]-[[Pre Modern Terms K|K]]-[[Pre Modern Terms L|L]]-[[Pre Modern Terms M|M]]-[[Pre Modern Terms N|N]]-[[Pre Modern Terms O|O]]-[[Pre Modern Terms P|P]]-[[Pre Modern Terms Q|Q]]-[[Pre Modern Terms R|R]]-[[Pre Modern Terms S|S]]-[[Pre Modern Terms T|T]]-[[Pre Modern Terms U|U]]-[[Pre Modern Terms V|V]]-[[Pre Modern Terms W|W]]-[[Pre Modern Terms X|X]]-[[Pre Modern Terms Y|Y]]-[[Pre Modern Terms Z|Z]] <br />
<br />
<br />
[[Galileo]]<br />
<br />
<br />
[[Israel Putnam|General Israel Putnam]]<br />
<br />
<br />
[[geocentric theory]]<br />
<br />
<br />
[[George Washington]]<br />
<br />
<br />
[[Georges Danton]]<br />
<br />
<br />
[[germ theory of disease]]<br />
<br />
<br />
[[German Confederation]]<br />
<br />
<br />
[[ghazi]]<br />
<br />
[[Giuseppe Garibaldi]]<br />
<br />
<br />
[[Glorious Revolution]]<br />
<br />
<br />
[[Goa]]<br />
<br />
<br />
[[Gottfried Leibniz]]<br />
<br />
<br />
[[Gran Colombia]]<br />
<br />
<br />
[[Great Awakening]]<br />
<br />
<br />
[[Great Fear]]<br />
<br />
<br />
[[Great Trek]]<br />
<br />
<br />
[[Guglielmo Marconi]]<br />
<br />
<br />
[[Ancient History Terms]] [[Middle Ages Terms]] [[Pre Modern Era Terms]] [[Renaissance Terms]] [[Reformation Terms]] [[Explorers]]</div>Kevin51292https://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Red_Shirts&diff=5817Red Shirts2006-12-14T16:02:43Z<p>Kevin51292: </p>
<hr />
<div>A nationalistic group who was formed with the intention of eliminating foreign rule in Italy during the early 1900s. This group was led by a man named Giuseppe Garibaldi.</div>Kevin51292https://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Ram_Mohun_Roy&diff=5816Ram Mohun Roy2006-12-14T16:00:34Z<p>Kevin51292: </p>
<hr />
<div>Ram Mohun Roy was a leader of one of the first Hindu reform movements. This movement was called the Brahmo Samaj.</div>Kevin51292https://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Pancho_Villa&diff=5815Pancho Villa2006-12-14T15:55:56Z<p>Kevin51292: </p>
<hr />
<div>Pancho Villa was one of the most important generals in the Mexican Revolution.</div>Kevin51292https://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Mehmet_II&diff=5704Mehmet II2006-12-13T17:39:36Z<p>Kevin51292: </p>
<hr />
<div>Mehmet II was the first emperor of the Ottoman Empire. Also, when he was only 21 he conquered Constantinople and brought an end to the Byzantine Empire.</div>Kevin51292https://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Mary_Wollstonecraft&diff=5701Mary Wollstonecraft2006-12-13T17:37:35Z<p>Kevin51292: </p>
<hr />
<div>Mary Wollstonecraft was a philosopher and feminist from England.</div>Kevin51292https://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Marie_and_Pierre_Curie&diff=5700Marie and Pierre Curie2006-12-13T17:36:08Z<p>Kevin51292: </p>
<hr />
<div>Marie Curie was a French-Polish physicist and chemist who was a pioneer in the field of radioactivity. Also, she was the first person to win Nobel Peace Prizes in two different fields. Her husband, Pierre Curie was also studied radioactivity. In addition to that he also was a pioneer in the fields of crystallography, magnetism and piezoelectricity.</div>Kevin51292https://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Klemens_von_Metternich&diff=5698Klemens von Metternich2006-12-13T17:27:43Z<p>Kevin51292: </p>
<hr />
<div>Klemens von Metternich is considered to be the most important diplomat of his time. He was also a statesman and played a large role in the negotiations prior to the Congress of Vienna.</div>Kevin51292https://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Hong_Xiuquan&diff=5697Hong Xiuquan2006-12-13T17:21:43Z<p>Kevin51292: </p>
<hr />
<div>Hong Xiuquan was the leader of the Taiping Rebellion. He also claimed to be the younger son of Jesus.</div>Kevin51292https://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User:Kevin51292&diff=5587User:Kevin512922006-12-12T19:20:14Z<p>Kevin51292: </p>
<hr />
<div> [[Image:Welcometomypage.gif]]<br />
<br />
Welcome to Kevin Fritz's page. If you have any questions, comments or corrections about my work then feel free to post on my user talk page.<br />
<br />
[[Image:VTU.jpg]]</div>Kevin51292https://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User:Kevin51292&diff=5586User:Kevin512922006-12-12T19:19:46Z<p>Kevin51292: </p>
<hr />
<div> [[Image:Welcometomypage.gif]]<br />
<br />
Welcome to Kevin Fritz's page. If you have any questions, comments or corrections about my work then feel free to post on my user talk page.<br />
<br />
[[Image:VTU.jpg]]</div>Kevin51292https://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=File:Welcometomypage.gif&diff=5584File:Welcometomypage.gif2006-12-12T19:17:42Z<p>Kevin51292: </p>
<hr />
<div></div>Kevin51292https://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User:Kevin51292&diff=5583User:Kevin512922006-12-12T19:15:11Z<p>Kevin51292: </p>
<hr />
<div>Welcome to Kevin Fritz's page. If you have any questions, comments or corrections about my work then feel free to post on my user talk page.<br />
<br />
[[Image:VTU.jpg]]</div>Kevin51292https://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk:Kevin51292&diff=5582User talk:Kevin512922006-12-12T19:14:25Z<p>Kevin51292: </p>
<hr />
<div>Hi!! If you have any questions, comments, or corrections please feel free to post here.</div>Kevin51292https://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User:Kevin51292&diff=5581User:Kevin512922006-12-12T19:13:37Z<p>Kevin51292: </p>
<hr />
<div>Welcome to Kevin Fritz's page. If you have any questions, comments or corrections about my work then feel free to post on my user talk page [[here]].<br />
<br />
[[Image:VTU.jpg]]</div>Kevin51292https://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User:Kevin51292&diff=5580User:Kevin512922006-12-12T19:12:58Z<p>Kevin51292: </p>
<hr />
<div>Welcome to Kevin Fritz's page. If you have any questions, comments or corrections about my work then feel free to post on my user talk page here.<br />
<br />
[[Image:VTU.jpg]]</div>Kevin51292https://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=File:VTU.jpg&diff=5579File:VTU.jpg2006-12-12T19:12:35Z<p>Kevin51292: </p>
<hr />
<div></div>Kevin51292https://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User:Kevin51292&diff=5578User:Kevin512922006-12-12T19:07:41Z<p>Kevin51292: </p>
<hr />
<div>[[Media:stuff.jpg]]<br />
[[stuff.jpg]]<br />
[[Image:stuff.jpg]]</div>Kevin51292https://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User:Kevin51292&diff=5577User:Kevin512922006-12-12T19:07:18Z<p>Kevin51292: </p>
<hr />
<div>[[Media:stuff.jpg]]<br />
[[stuff.jpg]]<br />
[[Image:stuff.jpg]]</div>Kevin51292https://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User:Kevin51292&diff=5576User:Kevin512922006-12-12T19:06:20Z<p>Kevin51292: </p>
<hr />
<div>[[Media:stuff.jpg]]<br />
[[stuff.jpg]]</div>Kevin51292https://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User:Kevin51292&diff=5575User:Kevin512922006-12-12T19:06:01Z<p>Kevin51292: </p>
<hr />
<div>[[Media:stuff.jpg]]</div>Kevin51292https://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User:Kevin51292&diff=5573User:Kevin512922006-12-12T19:05:04Z<p>Kevin51292: </p>
<hr />
<div>[[Media:Beethoven's_Symphony_No._9_(Scherzo).wma]]</div>Kevin51292https://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User:Kevin51292&diff=5572User:Kevin512922006-12-12T19:01:15Z<p>Kevin51292: </p>
<hr />
<div></div>Kevin51292https://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User:Kevin51292&diff=5571User:Kevin512922006-12-12T19:00:49Z<p>Kevin51292: </p>
<hr />
<div>[[Media:<br />
== Example.ogg ==<br />
<br />
== Kevin ==<br />
]]</div>Kevin51292https://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User:Kevin51292&diff=5570User:Kevin512922006-12-12T19:00:11Z<p>Kevin51292: </p>
<hr />
<div><nowiki>Insert non-formatted text here</nowiki></div>Kevin51292https://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Jose_Maria_Morelos&diff=5557Jose Maria Morelos2006-12-12T17:20:20Z<p>Kevin51292: </p>
<hr />
<div>Jose Maria Morelos was an important leader in the beginning of the Mexican fight for independence from Spain.</div>Kevin51292