MyLab Economics with Pearson eText -- Access Card -- for Microeconomics
2nd Edition
ISBN: 9780134519517
Author: Daron Acemoglu, David Laibson, John List
Publisher: PEARSON
expand_more
expand_more
format_list_bulleted
Question
Chapter 17, Problem 12P
To determine
Application of coase theorem in case of different divorce laws: when a person wanting the divorce wants it more than the person wanting the marriage to continue.
Expert Solution & Answer
Want to see the full answer?
Check out a sample textbook solution
Students have asked these similar questions
Does the same principal-agent conflict exist when people donate other items such as bone marrow, blood, eggs, sperm? Please explain why or why not.
Suppose that there are three beachfront parcels of land available for sale in Astoria, and six people who would each like to purchase one parcel. Assume that the parcels are essentially identical and that the selling price of each is $745,000. The following table states each person's willingness and ability to purchase a parcel.
Willingness and Ability to Purchase
(Dollars)
Alyssa
720,000
Brian
690,000
Crystal
680,000
Nick
900,000
Rosa
810,000
Tim
770,000
Which of these people will buy one of the three beachfront parcels? Check all that apply.
Alyssa
Brian
Crystal
Nick
Rosa
Tim
Assume that the three beachfront parcels are sold to the people you indicated in the previous section. Suppose that a few days after the last of those beachfront parcels is sold, another essentially identical beachfront parcel becomes available for sale at a price of $732,500. This fourth parcel _____________be sold…
We learned that we can use choice between a gamble over someone's best and worst outcomes and getting an outcome of interest (like getting pizza) for certain as a way to assign numeric values to utility (on a scale of 0 to 1).
Using this method, if you are indifferent between the following:
A gamble that has a 0.3 chance of your best possible outcome (and no lower chance), and a 0.7 chance of your worst possible outcome.
Getting pizza for certain.
it means that your utility for getting pizza is:
Chapter 17 Solutions
MyLab Economics with Pearson eText -- Access Card -- for Microeconomics
Knowledge Booster
Similar questions
- Modified True or False: State whether each statement is true or false. If the statement is false, briefly explain why it is so, and then restate it to make it true. k. Pareto efficiency or Pareto optimality is a condition where no change is possible that will make some members of society better off without making some other members of society worse off.arrow_forwardTrue or false 1. A perceived disadvantage of Rawls's social justice theory is that it does not consider the fact that people would not want to maximize benefits for the least advantaged persons 2. Ethical relativism is a moral theory which holds that individuals must decide what is ethical based on their own feelings about what is right and wrong. 3. Utilitarianism is a moral theory that chooses the greatest good to society but does not mean the greatest good for the greatest number of people. 4. According to Rawls's “social justice” theory, a person who is in a state of "veil of ignorance" is best fit to select the fairest possible ethical principles. Please help, & thank you!arrow_forwardPlease explain how Jack and Cody can maxmise utility through living in the same household with a unitary and non-unitary models. Unitary models - Mutual altruism (or any unitary model) Non-unitary models - Copertive models - Collective + Bargaining model.(or any Non-unitary models)arrow_forward
- Compare and contrast Jevon’s and Gossen’s view of the equimarginal rule for maximizing consumer utility. Which approach best captures the current state of knowledge in microeconomic theory? Why?arrow_forwardThe conventional wisdom for urban economic development is: “Don’t put all your eggs in one basket. Diversify the economy.” To explain the idea of diversification, consider old McDonald, who must carry a dozen eggs from the barn to the house. The ground between the barn and the house is slippery, so there is a 50 percent chance that McDonald will slip on a given trip and break all the eggs in his basket. Consider two strategies: a one-basket strategy (a single trip with all 12 eggs) and a two-basket strategy (two trips, with 6 eggs per trip). INDEPTH ANSWERS. Questions= (1.)List all of the possible outcomes under each of the strategies. Question (2.)What is the expected number of delivered (unbroken) eggs under each strategy ? Question (3.)What are the trade-offs between the two strategies? If you were McDonald, which strategy would you adopt? Question (4.)What are the lessons for economic development strategies?arrow_forwardWhy might the multiple-play ultimatum game have a different result than the single-play ultimatum game? In the multiple-play ultimatum game, the first player generally offers less money to the second player than in the single-play ultimatum game. The multiple-play ultimatum game leads to a simpler equilibrium: the first player offers exactly half of the total sum to the second player. The multiple-play ultimatum game allows for players to send signals. Therefore, the receiver can punish a player who doesn’t share enough. The multiple-play ultimatum game generally results in less cooperation because both players fall into a back-and-forth pattern of trying to punish the other player.arrow_forward
- In Figure 1, if in the status quo we are at point A, which point(s) would pass the Kaldor-Hicks compensation principle? In Figure 1, if in the status quo we are at point A, a movement to which point(s) would pass a unanimous vote? In Figure 1, if in the status quo we are at point A, describe what kind of side payment would be required to move to point D and cause neither Benny nor Gary to be made worse off?arrow_forwardWhen looking at the economics of marriage, how would a functionalist theorist and a social exchange theorist explain the benefits of marriage? (arrow_forwardSophia is a contestant on a game show and has selected the prize that lies behind door number 3.The show’s host tells her that there is a 50% chance that there is a $15,000 diamond ring behindthe door and a 50% chance that there is a goat behind the door (which is worth nothing to Sophia,who is allergic to goats). Before the door is opened, someone in the audience shouts, “I will giveyou the option of selling me what is behind the door for $8,000 if you will pay me $4,500 for thisoption.” [Assume that the game show allows this offer.]a. If Sophia cares only about the expected dollar values of various outcomes, will she buythis option?b. Explain why Sophia’s degree of risk aversion might affect her willingness to buy thisoptionarrow_forward
- Consider the model of the market for lemons from Chapter 22. Suppose that there are two types of used cars — good ones and lemons — and that sellers know which type of car they have. Buyers do not know which type of car a seller has. The fraction of used cars of each type is 21 and buyers know this. Let’s suppose that a seller who has a good car values it at $10,000 and a seller with a lemon values the lemon at $5,000. A seller is willing to sell his car for any price greater than or equal to his value for the car; the seller is not willing to sell the car at a price below the value of the car. Buyers’ values for good cars and lemons are $14,000 and $8,000, respectively. As in Chapter 22 we will assume that buyers are risk-neutral; that is, they are willing to pay their expected value of a car. (a) Is there an equilibrium in the used-car market in which all types of cars are sold? Briefly explain.(b) Is there an equilibrium in the used-car market in which only lemons are sold? Briefly…arrow_forwardBased on the given Edgeworth box explain why there is no intrinsic trade-off between efficiency and interpersonal equity.arrow_forwardAssume a society consists of two economic groups: one group is rich and the other group is poor. Suppose that 50 percent of the population is rich while the other 50 percent of the population is poor. Consider two scenarios. Scenario A: The rich have $80,000 each, while the poor have $5,000 each. Scenario B: The rich have $11,000 each, while the poor have $900 each. If you only care about average income and not about equity, you would prefer ▼ Scenario A Scenario B , which has an average income of $........?? (Enter your response to the nearest dollar.) Now suppose that you only care about equity or inequality. In this case, you would prefer ▼ Scenario B Scenario A , which has a rich-to-poor ratio of .........?? (Round your response to one decimal place.) Finally, suppose you only care about living standards. In this case, you would prefer ▼ Scenario A Scenario B because it has lower poverty.arrow_forward
arrow_back_ios
SEE MORE QUESTIONS
arrow_forward_ios
Recommended textbooks for you
