What would be the net benefits to Zach andthe lake reduces the catch per persJacob if the efficient number were provided?12. A lone person fishing at a lake can catch 10fish per day. Each additional person fishingact ntspfixes. As one opponson to assume that aprivateproduce a public goodin deciding whether to)privately.11./Suppose that there areonly two fishermen,coast. They would each benefit if lighthousesmarginal cost of building each additional light-house is $100. The marginal benefit to Zach ofeach additional lighthouse is 90 – Q, and themarginal benefit to Jacob is 40 – Q, where Qequals the number of lighthouses.a. Explain why we might not expect to find theefficient number of lighthouses along thiscoast.b. What is the efficient number of lighthouses?fish ner deu If .at

a) Zach's marginal benefit schedule represents that the marginal benefit of a lighthouse starts at…

11./Suppose that thei Zach and Jacob, who fish alo coast. They would each benefit if lighthouses were built along the coast where they fish. The marginal cost of building each additional light- house is $100. The marginal benefit to Zach of each additional lighthouse is 90 – Q, and the marginal benefit to Jacob is 40 – Q, where Q equals the number of lighthouses. a. Explain why we might not expect to find the efficient number of lighthouses along this coast. b. What is the efficient number of lighthouses? What would be the net benefits to Zach and Jacob if the efficient number were provided? 2. A lone person fishing at a lake

11./Suppose that thei Zach and Jacob, who fish alo coast. They would each benefit if lighthouses were built along the coast where they fish. The marginal cost of building each additional light- house is $100. The marginal benefit to Zach of each additional lighthouse is 90 – Q, and the marginal benefit to Jacob is 40 – Q, where Q equals the number of lighthouses. a. Explain why we might not expect to find the efficient number of lighthouses along this coast. b. What is the efficient number of lighthouses? What would be the net benefits to Zach and Jacob if the efficient number were provided? 2. A lone person fishing at a lake

Principles of Economics 2e

2nd Edition

ISBN:9781947172364

Author:Steven A. Greenlaw; David Shapiro

Publisher:Steven A. Greenlaw; David Shapiro

Chapter13: Positive Externalities And Public Goods

Section: Chapter Questions

Problem 24P: Assume that the marginal private costs of a film producing fuel-efficient can; is greater than the...

See similar textbooks

Similar questions

A country called Sherwood is very heavily covered with a forest of 50,000 trees. There are proposals to clear some of Sherwoods forest and grow com, but obtaining this additional economic output will have an environmental cost from reducing the number of trees. Table 12.11 shows possible combinations of economic output and environmental protection. Sketch a graph of a production possibility frontier with environmental quality on the horizontal axis, measured by the number of trees, and the quantity of economic output, measured in corn, on the vertical axis. Which choices display productive efficiency? How can you tell? Which choices show allocative efficiency? How can you tell? In the choice between T and R, decide which one is better. Why? In the choice between T and S, can you say which one is better, and why? If you had to guess, which choice would you think is more likely to represent a command-and-control environmental policy and which choice is more likely to represent a market-oriented environmental policy, choice Q or S? Why?
Consider the case of global environmental problems that spill across international borders as a prisoners dilemma of the sort studied in Monopolistic Competition and Oligopoly. Say that there are two countries, A and B. Each country can cheese whether to protect the environment, at a cost of 10, or not to protect it, at a cost of zero. If one country decides to protect the environment, there is a benefit of 16, but the benefit is divided equally between the two countries. If both countries decide to protect the environment, there is a benefit of 32, which is divided equally between the two centuries. In Table 12.10, fill in the costs, benefits, and total payoffs to the countries of the following decisions. Explain why, without some international agreement, they are likely to end up with neither country acting to protect the environment.
Assume that the marginal private costs of a film producing fuel-efficient can; is greater than the marginal social costs. Assume that the marginal private benefits of a firm producing fuel efficient cars are the same as the marginal social benefits. Discuss one wags.r that the government cans ï¬‚y to increase production and sales of fuel efficient cars to the socially desirable amount. Hint: the government is flying to affect production through costs, net benefits.
In the Land of Purity, there is only one form of pollution, called gunk. Table 12.14 shows possible combinations of economic output and reduction of gunk, depending on what kinds of environmental regulations you choose. Sketch a graph of a production possibility frontier with environmental quality on the horizontal axis, measured by the percentage reduction of gunk, and with the quantity of economic output on the vertical axis. Which choices display productive efficiency? How can you tell? Which choices show allocative efficiency? How can you tell? In the choice between K and L, can you say which one is better and why? In the choice between K. and N, can you say which one is better, and why? If you had to guess, which choice would you think is move likely to represent a command-and-control environmental policy and which choice is more likely to represent a market-oriented environmental policy, choice L or M? Why?
In what ways (it) company investments in research and development create positive externalities?
Suppose that Sonys R. Is this a private or social benefit?
Consider two approaches to reducing emissions of CO2 into the environment from manufacturing industries in the United States. In the first approach, the U.S. government makes it a policy to use only predetermined technologies. In the second approach, the U.S. government determines which technologies are cleaner and subsidizes their use. Of the two approaches, which is the command-and-control policy?
Refer to Table 12.2. The externality created by the refrigerator production was 100. However, once we accounted for both the private and additional external costs, the market price increased by only 50. If the external costs were 100 why did the price only increase by 50 when we accounted for all costs?
Suppose a city releases 16 million gallons of raw sewage into a nearby lake. Table 12.8 shows the total costs of cleaning up the sewage to different levels, together with the total benefits of doing so. (Benefits include environmental, recreational, health, and industrial benefits.) Using the information in Table 12.8, calculate the marginal costs and marginal benefits of reducing sewage emissions for this city. See Production, Costs and Industry Structure if you need a refresher on how to calculate marginal costs. What is the optimal level of sewage for this city? Why not just pass a law that films can emit zero sewage? After all, the total benefits of zero emissions exceed the total costs.
Radio stations, tornado sirens, light houses, and street lights are all public goods in that all are nonrivalrous and nonexclusionary. Therefore why does the government provide tornado sirens, street lights and light houses but not radio stations (other than PBS stations)?
Show the market for cigarettes in equilibrium, assuming that there are no laws banning smoking in public. Label the equilibrium private market price and quantity as Pm and Qm. Add whatever is needed to the model to show the impact of the negative externality from second-hand smoking. (Hint: In this case it is the consumers, not the sellers, who are creating the negative externality.) Label the social optimal output and price as Fe and Qe. On the graph, shade in the deadweight loss at the market output.
Is zero pollution an optimal goal? Way or why not?