Answer:
The answer is: Multi-segment marketing
Explanation:
Multi-segment marketing (or differentiated marketing) happens when a company tries to increase their market share by offering their products to different marketing segments. They try to reach as many market segments they can, using different promotional strategies for every segment. Nowadays, only big companies can afford this type of marketing strategy.
Scarcity is the condition wherein the mean to and end (that is resources required to achieve set goals) are limited in relation to the goals that need to be achieved.
Because of the above, one has to carefully make their choice while allocating the resources accordingly.
<h3>What is opportunity Cost?</h3>
When a choice is made between two competing alternatives, it means that one alternative has to be foregone. The alternative foregone is called the Opportunity Cost.
<h3>
What is a rationing device?</h3>
A rationing device is a system that determines who receives what of limited commodities and resources.
Price is one of the most regularly employed rationing techniques in a capitalistic (market-based) economic system.
Those who are willing and able to pay the price for a certain commodity (or resource) can obtain it.
Learn more about Scarcity:
brainly.com/question/4747543
#SPJ1
Answer:
The authorized common stock shares remain 1,000,000 shares.
Explanation:
The authorized shares are not affected by movements in the shares, like issue of shares, repurchase, and resale of treasury stock shares. The authorized shares, therefore, represent the number of shares that the company is legally bound to issue without exceeding. The implication is that the company is free to issue shares less than or equal to the authorized shares, but it may not issue more than the authorized until it obtains a new authorization.
The movements are accounted for in separate accounts called Issued Common Stock Account and Treasury Stock Account. The treasury stock account is a contra account to the Common Stock.
Answer:
carrot cake originated from such carrot puddings eaten by Europeans in the Middle Ages, when sugar and sweeteners were expensive and many people used carrots as a substitute for sugar.
1) Town of Bayport:
We have that the residents value the fireworks at
a total of 50+100+300=450$. That is the utility they gain. But they
would also have to pay 360$ for the fireworks. The total outcome is
450$+(-360$)=90$. Hence, the outcome is positive and the fireworks pass
the cost benefit analysis.
If the fireworks' cost is to be split
equally, we have that each of the 3 residents has to pay 360/3=120$. Let
us now do the cost-benefit analysis for everyone.
Jacques stands to gain 50$ from the fireworks but would have to pay 120$. He will vote against it.
Also, Kyoko will gain 100$ but would have to pay 120$. He will lose utility/money from this so he will vote against.
Musashi on the other hand, would gain 300$ and only pay 120$. He is largely benefitted by this measure. Only he would
We have that 2 out of the 3 would vote against the fireworks, so that the fireworks will not be bought. The vote does not yield the same answer as the benefit-cost analysis.
2) Town of River Heights:
We have that the total value of the fireworks to the community
is 20+140+160=320$. The total value of the fireworks is lower than
their cost so their cost benefit analysis yields that they should not be
bought.
However, let's see what each resident says. The cost to each resident is 360/3=120$. Rina is against the fireworks since she will only gain 20$. Sean and Yvette are for the fireworks since they gain 140$ and 160$ respectively, which are larger than the cost of the fireworks to each of them (120$). Hence, 2 will vote for the fireworks and one will vote against and fireworks will be bought.
Again, the vote clashes with the cost-benefit analysis.
3) The first choice is wrong. It is very difficult for a government to provide the exact types of public goods that everyone wants because that would be too costly; one cannot have a public good that everyone pays for so that only a couple of people enjoy it. In our example, we saw that in every case, a public good and its production would have sime supporters and some adversaries.
Majority rule is not always the most efficient way to decide public goods; as we have seen in the second case, the cost-benefit analysis yields that the fireworks are not worth it but they are approved by the majority nonetheless.
The final sentence is correct. The differing preferences of the people make a clearcut choice impossible and the government has to take into account various tradeoffs and compromises in order to determine which public goods to provide.