Economics Question Help plz 10 pts?

Economics Question Help plz 10 pts? Topic: Economics homework answers
June 25, 2019 / By Berniece
Question: Okay so I have this question from my homework that I don't know how to answer I have all the info for it just don't know how to put it here's the question How much of the growth of nominal GDP between 2002 and 2005 was the result of inflation and how much was the result of real GDP growth? So for 2002 I had Fun Quanity = 40 and Price =$2 Food Quantity = 60 and Price = $3 Nominal GDP = $260 And for 2005 Fun Quanity = 51 and Price = $4 Food Quanity = 80 and Price = $6 Nominal GDP = $684 And the Real GDP in 2002 should be $304 and in 2005 should be $342 So can someone please help me?
Best Answer

Best Answers: Economics Question Help plz 10 pts?

Affrica Affrica | 8 days ago
Real GDP takes Y2002 as base year. NGDP[2002] = 40x2 + 60x3 = $260 = RGDP[2002] NGDP[2005] = 51x4 + 80x6 = $684 RGDP[2005] = 51x2 + 80x3 = $342 % ΔRGDP[2002→2005] = 100x((342/260)-1) = +31.54% % ΔNGDP[2002→2005] = 100x((684/260)-1) = +163.08% % Inflation[2002→2005] = 100x(((684/260)/(342/260))-1) = +100%
👍 264 | 👎 8
Did you like the answer? Economics Question Help plz 10 pts? Share with your friends

We found more questions related to the topic: Economics homework answers

Affrica Originally Answered: Economics 1 homework question. HELP?
Alright, let's see what I remember from micoecon. AFC is the price you pay for producing good, no matter the amount. Rent on a building, for example AVC is the extra cost you incur per unit of output, ie your inputs. ATC is AFC + AVC Total cost in row 2 then, will be AVC2 + AFC because AFC doesn't change with quantity, so it should be the same as it is anywhere else on the chart. Also, the AVC in row 1 is also 0, because you haven't used anything in production yet (that' snot really necessary, I don't think, just a freebie). Ah yes, it's all coming back, I had tons of fun filling out these charts last year =p. I hope you have even more!
Affrica Originally Answered: Economics 1 homework question. HELP?
is this a approach or the different proper to the previous question approximately superstition because of the fact I swear, the respond previous my reaction is responding to the previous question. isn't it desirable that it happens to the respondent to point out that if the businessman did no longer make a earnings, he may be no longer able to pay you to construct a widget (then you somewhat might probably have not got any widgets), yet regardless of so scrutinous and thorough an examination, the respondent yet needless to say in no way notices that interior the comparable equation, YOU outfitted 2 WIDGETS!!!

Theodore Theodore
your question is complicated itself anyhow you stated you want maths then probable you should pass with enginnering like IIT-JEE etc. yet in case you want to pass with mbbs then it is going to takes 4.5 years yet first you should sparkling the pmt exam, the training takes minimum a million 3 hundred and sixty 5 days for getting waiting because in this time there is extra competition so for you to prepare..
👍 110 | 👎 2

Theodore Originally Answered: Is free market economics just empirical economics with an inverted law of diminishing returns?
Firstly, realize that just like with any view, some people can communicate their rationales more effectively than others. Just because some explanations you've heard make it sound like "blind faith" doesn't mean that there doesn't exist sound, reasonable justifications for that position. Secondly, for some more detailed, rational explanations for the positions of truly free market advocates, please see the writings of Austrian Economists (http://www.mises.org), Milton Friedman (http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/bios/Friedman.html) and Thomas Sowell (http://www.tsowell.com/). Neither do they agree 100% of the time, nor do I agree with them 100%, but in general, all free marketers advocate for a drastic change from the ever less and less free market to a truly free and open market. The disagreements are usually semantic, technical or theoretical and usually so minute that they basically have the same position in relation to planned market, political economists like Paul Krugman. Thirdly, let me try to clarify a couple of other misconceptions about about what true free market advocates are and are NOT. Free market advocates believe that success by someone else can lead to wealth for myself. In other words, wealth and the economy is not a fixed pie whereas every additional dollar I earn, means you have earned less. We believe that by the law of comparative advantage (http://mises.org/daily/3015), and free trade, everyone can be better off. Free market advocates believe that government bailouts end up removing the consequences that should affect businesses that take on too much risk in pursuit of profits. Free market advocates believe that by eliminating the overriding influence of government, businesses, instead of running wild over all consumers, would actually be competing on the same terms, and have to deal with the potential outcomes of risky or "bad" behavior, and therefore truly be at the mercy of consumers. (this and protection of private property rights is how pollution and other environmental behavior could be controlled [http://blog.mises.org/4939/law-property-rights-and-air-pollution-by-murray-rothbard/]). Free market advocates do NOT believe that businesses are inherently good. In fact, we recognize that most big businesses and CEOs are more opportunists than capitalists. If they can gain an advantage by supporting a particularly loyal politician, or using a legal loophole, or working with government to regulate their competitors, they will do so. Following that, free market advocates are NOT in favor of oil subsidies or corporate tax breaks, etc. In fact, many free market defenders have a name for that big business/government partnership: corporatism, and try to distinguish that from true free market capitalism. I could also go into a large amount about the role of the Federal Reserve and Austrian Business Cycle Theory, but I don't have room, so let me simply link to a book that describes it well as well as the overall causes of the recession we're in now (http://mises.org/store/Meltdown-P557.aspx). Basically, whoever you have heard describe free market principles seems to have done a horrible job of communicating them. I don't claim to be any great communicator, and it's difficult to communicate an entire philosophy of complex economic concepts into a single post, but I hope I dispelled some of the myths about free market advocates and given you a better idea of what they believe and given you some resources to learn that it's not based just on some "absolute faith in the [invisible hand]".
Theodore Originally Answered: Is free market economics just empirical economics with an inverted law of diminishing returns?
Instead of just talking about free market economics in general, let me try to specifically answer your charge. Free market economists don't believe it is better to "give" Bill Gates $100 vs a poor person. This accusation generally comes from the fact that defenders of the free market usually argue against higher taxes on the rich. This is not because we believe the rich are somehow better than the poor, but because we believe in private property rights. Simply put, unless done through fraud, (which should be prosecuted), they earned their money and are entitled to keep it and shouldn't be punished for having done so. But in fact, if given the initial capital, free market economists believe that that poor person, with intelligence, ambition, and hard work, has the potential to start the next Dell, Microsoft or Google without significant barriers to enter the market. However, things like government regulations, permits, licenses, fees, taxes, restrictions, etc often hinder that entry. Another point of contention is disagreement about the definition and use of the word "fair". For example, if Bill has $100 and the poor person (Pete) only has $1. Some would see it as fair that Bill pay $50 in taxes while Pete pays only $0.01 (or less). Some say that that taxation is fair because Bill still has over 50 times more money than Pete. While others would say that it is NOT fair that Bill had to pay 500,000% more in taxes than Pete. What new improvements might Bill have made if he had not had to pay his money in taxes? Note that the rich don't have money bins that they hoard all their money in. They reinvest it. Even if they simply store it in a simple, measly savings account, then that bank has the ability to loan out that money to new entrepreneurs and endeavors or even to the poor for their needs. Look at what Henry Ford did: He reinvested his profits and created the assembly line which drastically cut the costs of cars to the point that they were affordable to the poor. It's possible that he might have helped create cheaper, more efficient refrigerators, air conditioners, water filtration units, and many other devices could be made that would be more affordable to the poor and help millions across third world countries. It's possible that Bill, being so wealthy, might give billions of dollars to charity to help those poor across the world (http://www.gatesfoundation.org/Pages/home.aspx) build roads, schools, hospitals, libraries, etc. It's also possible that Bill decides to just buy a bunch of stuff; planes, cars, houses, furniture, paintings, sculptures, etc. Which means that he is creating jobs and his money is going to the mechanics who built the planes and the cars, the workers who constructed the houses and the furniture, the artists who created the paintings and the sculptures (all of whom are, on average, generally not terribly rich). And, yes, it's also possible that Bill just decides to see how much he can accumulate and simply stores his money under his mattress (in which case everyone else's money in circulation is worth that much more due to his money being out of circulation - http://mises.org/money/2s9.asp). But we don't know. We can't know. Because we will never know what he MIGHT have done with his money. Because it was taxed away. This is why free market people get so upset and scream about government corruption, fraud, waste and inefficiency. Not because we think that the GOALS of many government welfare programs are bad, or even necessarily that government itself is bad, but because we see so much more that was wasted. In addition to just the wasted dollars, we see people becoming dependent upon government, we see politicians preying on the circumstances of the poor by promising them "stuff" in exchange for votes, we see the loss of individual freedom and greater power given to bureaucrats and politicians, but we also see the potential of what MIGHT have been done with that money.

If you have your own answer to the question economics homework answers, then you can write your own version, using the form below for an extended answer.