Answer:
increase in output, but not in the equilibrium price of the product.
Explanation:
The options weren't provided. The full question can be found here - https://www.chegg.com/homework-help/questions-and-answers/perfectly-competitive-industry-x-constant-costs-product-inferior-good-industry-currently-l-q39354625
An inferior good is a good whose demand increases when income falls and whose demand falls when income rises.
When average income falls, the demand for good X rises. The level of output increases as a result of the rise in demand but price doesn't change.
I hope my answer helps you.
According to the historical cost principle, if an asset costs $50,000 when it was purchased, and the one who purchased it still owns the asset today, it will have a higher value than $50,000. If the interest rate is assumed to be 5% for 5 years, the asset will be recorded as $63,814.08.
The interest rate is 7%.
<u>Solution:</u>
The real rate of interest is always above the nominal interest rate when inflation is positive. In this case, we are told inflation is 3%. Since the real rate of return is the nominal interest rate minus inflation, we need a nominal interest rate of <u>5%+3%=8%</u> to get a real interest rate of 5%.
To calculate the real interest rate subtract the inflation rate from the nominal interest rate. Mathematically it looks like this The real interest rate is the nominal interest rate minus the inflation rate. Creeping inflation is a type of inflation in which the price level rises steadily at a moderate rate over an extended period of time.
Learn more about The interest rate here:-brainly.com/question/25793394
#SPJ4
Answer:
the standard of living increased
Explanation:
Between the years 1948 and 1990, the level of productivity in the United States of America increased tremendously, to the extent that it was in the doubled fold. Consequently, this increase in the level of productivity simply exemplified that, there is a substantial increase in the standard of living for the average American.
Hence, it can be concluded that, in this case, the workweek didn't get shorter because "the standard of living increased."
