Considering the given possible uses of candy, which of the four choices could be Pareto Efficient (assuming candy is a “good”)? Among the four choices, which policy would yield the highest value according to a “Rawlsian” welfare function? (assuming that sweet/candy is a “good”) Explain. CHOICE 1: Every student gets one candy. The remaining candies are thrown in the bin. CHOICE 2: One student gets all the candies CHOICE 3: Every student gets two candies except for one student, who gets no candy; the remaining go in the bin. CHOICE 4: All the candies go in the bin

Considering the given possible uses of candy, which of the four choices could be Pareto Efficient (assuming candy is a “good”)? Among the four choices, which policy would yield the highest value according to a “Rawlsian” welfare function? (assuming that sweet/candy is a “good”) Explain. CHOICE 1: Every student gets one candy. The remaining candies are thrown in the bin. CHOICE 2: One student gets all the candies CHOICE 3: Every student gets two candies except for one student, who gets no candy; the remaining go in the bin. CHOICE 4: All the candies go in the bin

Economics (MindTap Course List)

13th Edition

ISBN:9781337617383

Author:Roger A. Arnold

Publisher:Roger A. Arnold

Chapter5: Supply, Demand, And Price: Applications

Section5.3: Application 3: 10 A. M. Classes In College

Problem 1ST

See similar textbooks

Similar questions

Considering the given possible uses of candy, which of the four policies could be Pareto Efficient (assuming candy is a “good”)?
The problem of choice is called the Economic problem True/False
Indicate whether the statement is true or false, and justify your answer.Contrary to the predictions of welfare economics, people are willing to pay to have constraints place on themselves.
Why is economics often described as the science of constrained choice?
Is Pareto Efficiency enough to explain Welfare economics?
What assumptions are required for the two fundamental theorems of welfare economics to hold? Are these so strong that the theorems are devoid of practical relevance?
Why general equilibrium is not viable for Alfred Marshal’s theory of value?
Rahim and Karim are two brothers. Rahim got 4 ice creams and 6 chocolates and Karim received 6 ice creams and 4 chocolates from heaven (the economy is assumed with no production and the amounts of goods they received as the initial endowments). The two brothers have the same Cobb-Doughlas preference structure. Draw the Edgeworth box and level the initial endowments. What is Pareto improvement? Does Pareto improvement possible here? If yes, show the Pareto improvement area in the Edgeworth box.
Among the four choices, which policy would yield the highest value according to a “Rawlsian” welfare function? (assuming that sweet/candy is a “good”) Explain.
Do you think Pareto Efficiency is enough to explain welfare economics?
Betty has the endowment (8 eggs, 20 yogurts), which she can trade on the market. If the price of eggs is $1.8 per egg and the price of yogurts is $2.7 per yogurt, what is the value of her endowment at market prices? Please round your answer to two decimal places, if necessary.
Consider the utility functions below of two individuals, A and B, and bundles of goods Q and R. UA=X0.5Y0.5; UB=X+2Y; Bundle Q (10, 10); Bundle R (10, 15). Suppose the total X and total Y available in the economy are both equal to 20. a. If initially both individuals are consuming bundle Q, then a pareto-improvement is possible through reallocation of goods, i.e. individual A gives B some of his good X in exchange for some of individual B’s good Y. (True or False? Explain through mathematical examples).b. Pareto-optimality is achieved if we give individual B Bundle R and the remaining goods X and Y available in the economy is given to individual A. (True or false? Explain through a graphical example)