Two microeconomics judgment questions, seemingly not difficult, solve 20

It's pretty simple. 1 **The decline does not cause a movement of the supply curve, but only a movement (to the left) on the line of the supply curve. Therefore it is wrong.

2 Helmets and cars are complementary to each other, and the complementary products are manifested in the increase of one item (helmet)** and the decrease in demand for another item (car). The number of equilibrium on the question must be decreasing. Therefore it is also wrong.

One. Not only is the supply of commercial housing inelastic but the quantity will not change in the short term, that is, within expectations, the change is reflected in the movement above the supply line, not the movement of the supply line itself.

Two. The main theory used here is the cross-elasticity between complements. Helmets ** went up, apparently leading to a decrease in demand for motorcycles. This statement is wrong.

I don't know what the supply curve of commercial housing is in the first question, so I can't start the first question.

The second question, I personally think that motorcycle helmets are a supporting product, buy a motorcycle will buy a motorcycle helmet, motorcycle helmet will not be expensive enough to make consumers consider whether to buy the problem, therefore, the equilibrium number should be unchanged, only the helmet ** rises, the equilibrium ** rises.

I don't understand the first question.

The second question I think that helmets **** means that helmets are in short supply, that is, motorcycle sales are strong, and at this time there is a supply and demand curve It can be seen that in the new equilibrium, the equilibrium of motorcycles has risen, and the number has also risen. This is my personal opinion.

The first correct --- to examine the difference between the supply and the quantity of supply;

The second mistake --- to look at the definition of complementary products!

1, this one. The core theory of microeconomics is the ** theory, and the core theory of macroeconomics is the theory of national income determination.

2. Yes, empirical analysis solves the question of "what", while normative analysis solves the question of "what should be".

3. Wrong, it's right to remove the different. It is used to denote all combinations of two goods that have the same consumer preference. Or all combinations of two goods that can bring the same level of utility or satisfaction to the consumer.

4, right. 5. Yes, in general, the elasticity of demand for necessities is between 0 and 1, while luxury goods are greater than 1.

6. Wrong, it's the opposite for low-grade items.

7. Wrong, it should be because he went to college and gave up the benefits that not going to college may bring him.

8, this should be right, I don't know much.

9. False. 10. Wrong, not the same. The slope of each point on the linear demand curve is equal, but the point elasticity values at each point are not equal, so don't confuse the two concepts.

11, it's wrong at first glance.

12. I think it's wrong, start with the word "completely", it's too absolute. Moreover, it may also be reflected on **.

If there is anything wrong, please forgive me.

Solution: (1) It is known that the current sales volume of the two companies is the demand they are facing, when qx=100, qy=250; px=500，py=600。

Because qx=(1000-px) 5, qy=(1600-py) 4;

So from the elasticity formula, we get ex=1 5*(500 100)=1

ey =1/4*(600/250)=

2) Cross-elasticity When QY increases to 300 units, PY=400; When qx drops to 75, px=625.

The change in Qx after the price reduction in Y is 100-75=25, and the change in PY is 600-400=200

The change in QY is 300-250=50, and the change in PX is 625-500=125

The cross-elasticity faced by company X is: exy = (25 200) * 600 100 =

The cross-elasticity faced by company y is: eyx=(50 125)*(500 250)=

3) The sales revenue before the price reduction is 250 * (1600-250 * 4) = 150000

The sales revenue after the price reduction is 300 * (1600-300 * 4) = 120000

It is clear that Y's sales revenue before the price reduction is higher than after the price reduction, so the price reduction is unreasonable.

C should be chosen for this question.

Because the demand of the industry is the sum of all manufacturers. The x-axis is the quantity, and the y-axis is **. Under the same **, the demand of the industry is definitely greater than the demand of a single manufacturer. So, the curve of the industry is flatter. Both, ** changes, the impact on industry demand is greater.

This question is very unrigorous, and under the premise of absolute monopoly you said, the possibility of only one manufacturer cannot be ruled out. Many of the assumptions in this kind of question are not clearly written, and it feels like a question that has not been copied completely.

Hello: Manufacturers are the pursuitMaximize profits, the equilibrium state is the state of maximizing profits, that is, satisfying mr=mc. If it is a microeconomics question of beginner difficulty, the conclusion is correct, and the proof is as follows:

Necessity

The vendor profit function isπ（q）=r（q）-c（q）。r(q) is the benefit function and c(q) is the cost function.

To maximize profits, d = 0, i.e. mr-mc = 0. MR=MC can be launched.

Sufficiency: From mr=mc, we can know that mr-mc=0, that is, d =0, that is, the first derivative of the profit function is 0, and the profit is taken to the extreme. Therefore, this conclusion is correct.

If it is a micro problem, this conclusion is incorrect, mr=mc is a necessary condition, and the equilibrium state needs to be satisfiedSecond-order condition d 2 d (q 2) 0That is, the second derivative of the profit function is less than 0, this is the only way to ensure that the extreme value obtained at d = 0 is the maximum value.

Upstairs correct.

According to the theory of microeconomics, =p·q-c(q).

Where Q = C(Q) = P= L=0, the profit is maximized.

Substitute the data, get.

l=(root(

How could I calculate that the result was so much worse than the standard answer? I've got a big number, it's a fraction, and there's a root number.

I calculated that the answer is that l=60 is the largest profit, right?

Fourth, 1 MPL is the first-order partial derivative of Q vs. L, and MPK is the first-order partial derivative of Q vs. K.

2.It is to prove that the MPL and MPK functions above are decreasing, that is, to prove that the second derivative of q to l and k is less than 0.

3,.According to the definition of the constant scale reward, the k and l of the original function are enlarged by a factor at the same time, and if q is also enlarged by a fold, it is proved.

5. This news is similar to the content of the Focus Interview on January 20, 2014, and is both recent.

When there are both high-quality and low-quality products in the product market, the buyers of the product are only willing to bid according to the average quality of the market because of the existence of incomplete information and the quality of the product, so they are only willing to bid according to the average quality of the market, then the quality of the product is higher than the average quality of the product is expected to be higher than the average quality, and the rest are products below the average quality, and the production cost of the low-quality product is lower, and the profit will be higher than that of the normal enterprise, so it continues to exist. This process is called adverse selection, and the end theoretical result of adverse selection is a shrinking or crashing market.

This case illustrates that market failures can occur in the face of incomplete information, and the solutions are: develop third-party certification or insurance; ** Intensify the maintenance of the normal market competition order and crack down on this kind of behavior that undermines fair competition in the market; Strengthen the quality inspection process, so that consumers can get more product information.