Suppose Hang Tuah has 10 keris and 2 arrows and Hang Jebat has 2 keris and 2 arrows. If this allocation i considered as Pareto Optimal, what mutually beneficial exchange could be made? Andaikan Hang Tuah mempunyai sepuluh keris dan enam anak panah dan Hang Jebat mempunyai 2 keris dan 2 anak panah. Jika peruntukan ini dianggap sebagai Pareto Optimum, apakah pertukaran yang saling menguntungkan yang boleh dilakukan? a. Hang Jebat should give up arrows to get more keris. Hang Jebat patut melepaskan anak panah untuk mendapatkan lebih banyak keris. b. Hang Tuah should give up keris to get more arrows. Hang Tuah patut melepaskan keris untuk mendapatkan lebih banyak anak panah. c. None. No beneficial exchange can result that benefits one party without hurting the other. Tiada. Tiada pertukaran yang berfaedah yang boleh menyebabkan keuntungkan kepada satu pihak tanpa merugikan pihak yang lain. d. Arrows should should be taken from Hang Tuah and given to Hang lebat to equalize their weapons

Suppose Hang Tuah has 10 keris and 2 arrows and Hang Jebat has 2 keris and 2 arrows. If this allocation i considered as Pareto Optimal, what mutually beneficial exchange could be made? Andaikan Hang Tuah mempunyai sepuluh keris dan enam anak panah dan Hang Jebat mempunyai 2 keris dan 2 anak panah. Jika peruntukan ini dianggap sebagai Pareto Optimum, apakah pertukaran yang saling menguntungkan yang boleh dilakukan? a. Hang Jebat should give up arrows to get more keris. Hang Jebat patut melepaskan anak panah untuk mendapatkan lebih banyak keris. b. Hang Tuah should give up keris to get more arrows. Hang Tuah patut melepaskan keris untuk mendapatkan lebih banyak anak panah. c. None. No beneficial exchange can result that benefits one party without hurting the other. Tiada. Tiada pertukaran yang berfaedah yang boleh menyebabkan keuntungkan kepada satu pihak tanpa merugikan pihak yang lain. d. Arrows should should be taken from Hang Tuah and given to Hang lebat to equalize their weapons

Principles of Microeconomics

7th Edition

ISBN:9781305156050

Author:N. Gregory Mankiw

Publisher:N. Gregory Mankiw

Chapter3: Interdependence And The Gains From Trade

Section: Chapter Questions

Problem 3CQQ

See similar textbooks

Similar questions

Alert: Don't submit AI generated answer and given explanation why option is correct and why other is incorrect. Angela is a farmer whose feasible frontier is illustrated in the diagram. Bruno is Angela's neighbour who is not a farmer but claims some of Angela's harvest for an unknown reason. The Points E-I are possible allocations of grain production between Angela and Bruno. The current allocation between the two parties is Point E. Which statement incorrectly describes the situation illustrated in the diagram? Select one: a. If the allocation moves to Point F, the total output level increases. b. Angela would prefer Point I to the current allocation as she would have more grain and more free time. c. From the diagram it is not certain whether Angela would prefer Point G to Point E. d. Angela would not prefer Point G to Point F as the former requires her to work more hours than the latter. e. Bruno and Angela are currently splitting the output in half
The allocation where D1, D2, D3, D4, and D8 consume and S1, S2, S3, S4, and S5 sell is not Pareto efficient because... (hint: you can prove that an allocation is not Pareto Efficient by showing that there's a better way to allocate the widget. Which of the following choices is better (more efficient) than the proposed allocation where D1, D2, D3, D4, and D8 consume and S1, S2, S3, S4, and S5 sell?) Note:- Do not provide handwritten solution. Maintain accuracy and quality in your answer. Take care of plagiarism. Answer completely. You will get up vote for sure.
A. State the first theorem of welfare economics of a production and exchange economy. B. Which conditions must be satisfied for the Pareto efficiency of an allocation of a production and exchange economy (assuming that all goods are used, produced and consumed in strictly positive quantities)? Discuss and explain.
Amy and Lela have following preferences for apples, pears and bananas where > means "preferred to." Amy: apple > pear > banana Lela: banana > apple > pear Assume there is one apple, one banana and one pear to divide between Amy and Lela and that they have no other goods. For each of the following allocations, say whether it is (Pareto) efficient or inefficient. 1. Amy gets the apple and the pear and Lela gets the banana [ Select ] ["Efficient", "Inefficient"] 2. Amy gets the banana and Lela gets the apple and the pear [ Select ] ["Efficient", "Inefficient"] 3. Amy gets the pear, apple and banana and Lela gets nothing [ Select ] ["Efficient", "Inefficient"]
Suppose that 2 roommates, Andy and Bob, are trying to pick an apartment in Chicago. Locations can be chosen from set of alternatives A={ x: x exists [0,1]}. Andy and Bob both want to minimize their daily commute but they work at different locations: Andy at xA=0.3, while Bob at xB=0.6. Specifically, their utility functions are: ui(x)= -(x-xi)2. Question: What is the set of all Pareto Efficient outcomes in A, assuming no money can be exchanged.
Two individuals, Fred and Helen, are in an economy with no production, and each have the utility function U = 10XY. Prices of both X and Y are set at $1. Initial endowments for Fred are 10 units of X and 6 units of Y. Helen has 8 units of X and 12 units of Y. Find the general equilibrium prices and allocation, then show that the G.E. allocation is Pareto efficient.
When an allocation is changed and someone becomes better-off, then we can call this a Pareto-Improvement, so long as ____. A. All other parties become better-off B. All other parties become worse-off C. Someone else is made worse-off D. No one is worse-off
Jane has 11 liters of soft drinks and 10 sandwiches. Bob, on the other hand, has 9 liters of soft drinks and 10 sandwiches. With these endowments, Jane's marginal rate of substitution (MRS) of soft drinks for sandwiches is 6 and Bob's MRS is equal to 8. Draw an Edgeworth box diagram to show whether this allocation of resources is efficient. If it is explain why. If it is not, what changes will make both parties better off? Part 2 1.) Using the three-point curved line drawing tool, draw an indifference curve for Jane when consuming 11 liters of soft drinks and 10 sandwiches. Label this curve UJ. 2.) Using the three-point curved line drawing tool, draw an indifference curve for Bob when consuming 9 liters of soft drinks and 10 sandwiches. Label this curve UB.
Weel explained answer needed no Ai The Coase Theorem states that: a) As long as property rights are well defined and no transaction costs exist, an efficient allocation will result b)As long as property rights are well defined and transaction costs are high, an efficient allocation will result. c)An efficient allocation will be equitable to all parties concerned. d)Property rights should initially be assigned to those affected by a negative externality.
Consider a two-person exchange economy in which person 1 owns 200 units of x and 100 units of y while person 2 owns 100 units of x and 200 units y. Suppose their preferences over the two goods can be represented as: U1 (x, y) = y + 50Inx U2 (x, y) = y + 150lnx 1. How much of x do they trade among each other? 2. Does the First Welfare Theorem (FWT) hold in this economy?
The U.S. imports lumber among other goods from Canada. The lumber has been the topic of political dialogue between the 2 countries in the past few days. So let’s take X as ‘lumber’ and Y as ‘other goods’. Suppose the Canadian lumber and other exportable goods are produced with the following production Possibilities frontier (PPF): X2 + Y2 = 900 Suppose the U.S. utility function for the Canadian lumber, X, and other exportable goods, Y, is: U = X Y a. Derive the conditions necessary to determine the ‘Optimal Product Mix’ discussed in chapter 10. b. Draw the PPF (partial just the first quadrant) with Y on the vertical axis. On the same graph, draw at least one indifference curve so as to show the “optimal product mix’. Can this graph represent the ‘pure exchange’ economy? Explain why or why not. c. Now draw in a price line that can make the ‘optimal product mix’ a competitive exchange equilibrium. Can…
Consider a simple exchange economy with two people: Bob and Jake. Bob and Jake both have ten hoursof time available. The can use their time to do one of two things: make pancakes or make hamburgers.Bob can make two hamburgers in an hour or one pancake in an hour. Jake can make three pancakes in anhour or two hamburgers in an hour. Use this information to answer the following questions:a.) Draw Jake and Bob’s PPFs, with hamburgers on the x-axis.b.) Give equations for Jake and Bob’s PPFs in y = mx+b form, still treating hamburgers as the xvariable.c.) Who has absolute advantage in the production of hamburgers? Who has absolute advantage inthe production of pancakes?d.) Who has comparative advantage in the production of hamburgers? Who has comparativeadvantage in the production of pancakes?e.) Can Bob and Jake both benefit from trade if the terms of trade are one pancake per hambruger?Why