DOCSLIB.ORG

Chapter 5 Perfect Competition, Monopoly, and Economic Vs

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

Chapter Outline Chapter 5 • From Perfect Competition to Perfect Competition, Monopoly • Supply Under Perfect Competition Monopoly, and Economic vs. Normal Profit McGraw -Hill/Irwin © 2007 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc., All Rights Reserved. McGraw -Hill/Irwin © 2007 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc., All Rights Reserved. From Perfect Competition to Picking the Quantity to Maximize Profit Monopoly The Perfectly Competitive Case P • Perfect Competition MC ATC • Monopolistic Competition AVC • Oligopoly P* MR • Monopoly Q* Q Many Competitors McGraw -Hill/Irwin © 2007 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc., All Rights Reserved. McGraw -Hill/Irwin © 2007 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc., All Rights Reserved. Picking the Quantity to Maximize Profit Characteristics of Perfect The Monopoly Case Competition P • a large number of competitors, such that no one firm can influence the price MC • the good a firm sells is indistinguishable ATC from the ones its competitors sell P* AVC • firms have good sales and cost forecasts D • there is no legal or economic barrier to MR its entry into or exit from the market Q* Q No Competitors McGraw -Hill/Irwin © 2007 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc., All Rights Reserved. McGraw -Hill/Irwin © 2007 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc., All Rights Reserved. 1 Monopoly Monopolistic Competition • The sole seller of a good or service. • Monopolistic Competition: a situation in a • Some monopolies are generated market where there are many firms producing similar but not identical goods. because of legal rights (patents and copyrights). • Example : the fast-food industry. McDonald’s has a monopoly on the “Happy Meal” but has • Some monopolies are utilities (gas, much competition in the market to feed kids water, electricity etc.) that result from burgers and fries. high fixed costs. McGraw -Hill/Irwin © 2007 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc., All Rights Reserved. McGraw -Hill/Irwin © 2007 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc., All Rights Reserved. Oligopoly Which Model Fits Reality? • Oligopoly: a situation in a market • Perfect competition is rare outside where there are very few discernible agriculture though it fits some labor competitors markets. • Examples • Monopolies are common in utilities – Satellite TV service (Direct TV, Dish • Major branded companies are typically Network) either in oligopolistic or monopolistically – Airlines (American, Delta etc.) competitive industries. McGraw -Hill/Irwin © 2007 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc., All Rights Reserved. McGraw -Hill/Irwin © 2007 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc., All Rights Reserved. Examples of Different Market Distinguishing Characteristics Between Forms Market Forms Perfect Monopolistic Oligopoly Monopoly Perfect Monopolistic Oligopoly Monopoly Competition Competition Competition Competition 1) Agriculture 1) Fast Food 1) Cars and 1) Windows Number Many-often Several* Few* One Trucks Operating of Firms thousands or 2) Lumber 2) Long even millions Distance 2) Soft system Service Drinks 2) Local Barriers None Few Substantial Insurmountable, Residential to Entry at least in the electric short run power Product Identical Similar but not Similar or N/A Similarity identical Identical * The line between “several” and “ few” is not definite McGraw -Hill/Irwin © 2007 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc., All Rights Reserved. McGraw -Hill/Irwin © 2007 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc., All Rights Reserved. 2 Concentration Ratios For Various Concentration Ratios Manufacturing Industries • there is no magic line that separates Industry Group Concentration Ratios oligopoly from monopolistic competition. 4 Largest Firms 8 Largest Firms 50 Largest Firms • a “concentration ratio” measures the Breakfast 82.9% 93.5% 100.0% percentage of total market sales for the Cereals Ice Cream 32.3 48.7 88.3 top firms (from 4 firms to 100 firms). Beer 89.7 93.4 96.7 Clothing 17.6 23.2 38.8 Computers and 37.0 52.1 86.3 Peripherals Furniture 11.2 17.6 37.2 Long Distance 47.0 74.9 95.4 Cellular Service 51.4 74.6 88.0 McGraw -Hill/Irwin © 2007 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc., All Rights Reserved. McGraw -Hill/Irwin © 2007 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc., All Rights Reserved. Normal vs. Economic Profit • Normal Profit : the level of profit that Supply Under Perfect business owners could get in their next best alternative investment Competition • Economic Profit: any profit above normal profit McGraw -Hill/Irwin © 2007 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc., All Rights Reserved. McGraw -Hill/Irwin © 2007 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc., All Rights Reserved. Return on Equity For Various Industries Industry Rate of Return Net Income/(Assets- Liabilities) When and Why Economic Agriculture 8.0% Profits Go to Zero Manufacturing 14.6% Transportation and Public 10.6% Utilities Wholesale and Retail Trade 12.9% McGraw -Hill/Irwin © 2007 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc., All Rights Reserved. McGraw -Hill/Irwin © 2007 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc., All Rights Reserved. 3 Time Horizons Market Forms and Economic Profits • Short Run: the period of time where we • Under perfect competition or monopolistic competition, economic profits go to zero cannot change things like plant and because of the entry of new firms increases equipment market supply and lowers prices. • Long Run : the period of time where we • Economic profits are under no pressure to can change things like plant and shrink under oligopoly or monopoly because equipment entry doesn’t occur so prices do not fall. McGraw -Hill/Irwin © 2007 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc., All Rights Reserved. McGraw -Hill/Irwin © 2007 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc., All Rights Reserved. Figure 2 The Pressures on Price in Perfect Figure 3 Points of Production in Perfect Competition Competition $ $ Long Run MC Pressure MC MR 4 MR 4 Short Run ATC Pressure ATC AVC AVC MR 3 MR 3 MR 2 MR 2 MR 1 MR 1 Q Q McGraw -Hill/Irwin © 2007 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc., All Rights Reserved. McGraw -Hill/Irwin © 2007 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc., All Rights Reserved. Figure 4 Supply in Perfect Competition $ MC Supply ATC AVC Q McGraw -Hill/Irwin © 2007 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc., All Rights Reserved. 4.
Recommended publications
  • Monopolistic Competition in General Equilibrium: Beyond the CES Evgeny Zhelobodko, Sergey Kokovin, Mathieu Parenti, Jacques-François Thisse

    Monopolistic Competition in General Equilibrium: Beyond the CES Evgeny Zhelobodko, Sergey Kokovin, Mathieu Parenti, Jacques-François Thisse

    Monopolistic competition in general equilibrium: Beyond the CES Evgeny Zhelobodko, Sergey Kokovin, Mathieu Parenti, Jacques-François Thisse To cite this version: Evgeny Zhelobodko, Sergey Kokovin, Mathieu Parenti, Jacques-François Thisse. Monopolistic com- petition in general equilibrium: Beyond the CES. 2011. halshs-00566431 HAL Id: halshs-00566431 https://halshs.archives-ouvertes.fr/halshs-00566431 Preprint submitted on 16 Feb 2011 HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access L’archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci- destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents entific research documents, whether they are pub- scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non, lished or not. The documents may come from émanant des établissements d’enseignement et de teaching and research institutions in France or recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires abroad, or from public or private research centers. publics ou privés. WORKING PAPER N° 2011 - 08 Monopolistic competition in general equilibrium: Beyond the CES Evgeny Zhelobodko Sergey Kokovin Mathieu Parenti Jacques-François Thisse JEL Codes: D43, F12, L13 Keywords: monopolistic competition, additive preferences, love for variety, heterogeneous firms PARIS-JOURDAN SCIENCES ECONOMIQUES 48, BD JOURDAN – E.N.S. – 75014 PARIS TÉL. : 33(0) 1 43 13 63 00 – FAX : 33 (0) 1 43 13 63 10 www.pse.ens.fr CENTRE NATIONAL DE LA RECHERCHE SCIENTIFIQUE – ECOLE DES HAUTES ETUDES EN SCIENCES SOCIALES ÉCOLE DES PONTS PARISTECH – ECOLE NORMALE SUPÉRIEURE – INSTITUT NATIONAL DE LA RECHERCHE AGRONOMIQUE Monopolistic Competition in General Equilibrium: Beyond the CES∗ Evgeny Zhelobodko† Sergey Kokovin‡ Mathieu Parenti§ Jacques-François Thisse¶ 13th February 2011 Abstract We propose a general model of monopolistic competition and derive a complete characterization of the market equilibrium using the concept of Relative Love for Variety.

  • Introduction to Competition Analysis1 Introduction

    CUTS INTERNATIONAL 7UP3 PROJECT NATIONAL TRAINING WORKSHOP ON COMPETITION POLICY AND LAW INTRODUCTION TO COMPETITION ANALYSIS1 INTRODUCTION Competition analysis is at the core of the implementation of competition policy and law since it involves the identification, investigation and evaluation of restrictive business practices (RBPs) for the purposes of remedying their adverse effects. Without a proper competition analysis, and a dedicated competition authority to undertake such analyses, it would not be possible to effectively implement even the best competition policy and law in the world. This paper briefly outlines the basic concepts of competition before discussing in more detail the process of competition analysis, covering issues such as: (i) market definition; (ii) entry conditions; (iii) competition case investigation and evaluation; and (iv) remedial action. The paper also discusses a case study on a competition case handled by the competition authority of Zimbabwe, which illustrates the practical application of the various concepts discussed. BASIC CONCEPTS OF COMPETITION The concept of competition is a difficult and complex one, but one has to get a grasp of the issues involved in order to understand and appreciate its analysis. There is no singular concept of competition. It is therefore hardly surprising that the term ‘competition’ is defined in very few, if any, competition legislation of both developing and developed countries. Schools of Thought on Competition There are a number of different uses, definitions and concepts of the term ‘competition’ depending on who one is and what purpose one wants to use the definition for2. Consumers, business persons, economists and lawyers all use different concepts and definitions of competition.
  • A Pure Theory of Aggregate Price Determination Masayuki Otaki

    A Pure Theory of Aggregate Price Determination Masayuki Otaki

    DBJ Discussion Paper Series, No.0906 A Pure Theory of Aggregate Price Determination Masayuki Otaki (Institute of Social Science, University of Tokyo) June 2010 Discussion Papers are a series of preliminary materials in their draft form. No quotations, reproductions or circulations should be made without the written consent of the authors in order to protect the tentative characters of these papers. Any opinions, findings, conclusions or recommendations expressed in these papers are those of the authors and do not reflect the views of the Institute. A Pure Theory of Aggregate Price Determinationy Masayuki Otaki Institute of Social Science, University of Tokyo 7-3-1 Hongo Bukyo-ku, Tokyo 113-0033, Japan. E-mail: [email protected] Phone: +81-3-5841-4952 Fax: +81-3-5841-4905 yThe author thanks Hirofumi Uzawa for his profound and fundamental lessons about “The General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money.” He is also very grateful to Masaharu Hanazaki for his constructive discussions. Abstract This article considers aggregate price determination related to the neutrality of money. When the true cost of living can be defined as the function of prices in the overlapping generations (OLG) model, the marginal cost of a firm solely depends on the current and future prices. Further, the sequence of equilibrium price becomes independent of the quantity of money. Hence, money becomes non-neutral. However, when people hold the extraneous be- lief that prices proportionately increase with money, the belief also becomes self-fulfilling so far as the increment of money and the true cost of living are low enough to guarantee full employment.
  • Parker Brothers Real Estate Trading Game in 1934, Charles B

    Parker Brothers Real Estate Trading Game in 1934, Charles B

    Parker Brothers Real Estate Trading Game In 1934, Charles B. Darrow of Germantown, Pennsylvania, presented a game called MONOPOLY to the executives of Parker Brothers. Mr. Darrow, like many other Americans, was unemployed at the time and often played this game to amuse himself and pass the time. It was the game’s exciting promise of fame and fortune that initially prompted Darrow to produce this game on his own. With help from a friend who was a printer, Darrow sold 5,000 sets of the MONOPOLY game to a Philadelphia department store. As the demand for the game grew, Darrow could not keep up with the orders and arranged for Parker Brothers to take over the game. Since 1935, when Parker Brothers acquired the rights to the game, it has become the leading proprietary game not only in the United States but throughout the Western World. As of 1994, the game is published under license in 43 countries, and in 26 languages; in addition, the U.S. Spanish edition is sold in another 11 countries. OBJECT…The object of the game is to become the wealthiest player through buying, renting and selling property. EQUIPMENT…The equipment consists of a board, 2 dice, tokens, 32 houses and 12 hotels. There are Chance and Community Chest cards, a Title Deed card for each property and play money. PREPARATION…Place the board on a table and put the Chance and Community Chest cards face down on their allotted spaces on the board. Each player chooses one token to represent him/her while traveling around the board.
  • Market Failure Guide

    Market Failure Guide

    Market failure guide A guide to categorising market failures for government policy development and evaluation industry.nsw.gov.au Published by NSW Department of Industry PUB17/509 Market failure guide—A guide to categorising market failures for government policy development and evaluation An external academic review of this guide was undertaken by prominent economists in November 2016 This guide is consistent with ‘NSW Treasury (2017) NSW Government Guide to Cost-Benefit Analysis, TPP 17-03, Policy and Guidelines Paper’ First published December 2017 More information Program Evaluation Unit [email protected] www.industry.nsw.gov.au © State of New South Wales through Department of Industry, 2017. This publication is copyright. You may download, display, print and reproduce this material provided that the wording is reproduced exactly, the source is acknowledged, and the copyright, update address and disclaimer notice are retained. To copy, adapt, publish, distribute or commercialise any of this publication you will need to seek permission from the Department of Industry. Disclaimer: The information contained in this publication is based on knowledge and understanding at the time of writing July 2017. However, because of advances in knowledge, users are reminded of the need to ensure that the information upon which they rely is up to date and to check the currency of the information with the appropriate officer of the Department of Industry or the user’s independent advisor. Market failure guide Contents Executive summary
  • Buyer Power: Is Monopsony the New Monopoly?

    Buyer Power: Is Monopsony the New Monopoly?

    COVER STORIES Antitrust , Vol. 33, No. 2, Spring 2019. © 2019 by the American Bar Association. Reproduced with permission. All rights reserved. This information or any portion thereof may not be copied or disseminated in any form or by any means or stored in an electronic database or retrieval system without the express written consent of the American Bar Association. Buyer Power: Is Monopsony the New Monopoly? BY DEBBIE FEINSTEIN AND ALBERT TENG OR A NUMBER OF YEARS, exists—or only when it can also be shown to harm consumer commentators have debated whether the United welfare; (2) historical case law on monopsony; (3) recent States has a monopoly problem. But as part of the cases involving monopsony issues; and (4) counseling con - recent conversation over the direction of antitrust siderations for monopsony issues. It remains to be seen law and the continued appropriateness of the con - whether we will see significantly increased enforcement Fsumer welfare standard, the debate has turned to whether the against buyer-side agreements and mergers that affect buyer antitrust agencies are paying enough attention to monopsony power and whether such enforcement will be successful, but issues. 1 A concept that appears more in textbooks than in case what is clear is that the antitrust enforcement agencies will be law has suddenly become mainstream and practitioners exploring the depth and reach of these theories and clients should be aware of developments when they counsel clients must be prepared for investigations and enforcement actions on issues involving supply-side concerns. implicating these issues. This topic is not going anywhere any time soon.
  • Classical Vs Neoclassical Conceptions of Competition

    Classical Vs Neoclassical Conceptions of Competition

    ISSN 1791-3144 University of Macedonia Department of Economics Discussion Paper Series Classical vs. Neoclassical Conceptions of Competition Lefteris Tsoulfidis Discussion Paper No. 11/2011 Department of Economics, University of Macedonia, 156 Egnatia str, 540 06 Thessaloniki, Greece, Fax: + 30 (0) 2310 891292 http://econlab.uom.gr/econdep/ 1 Classical vs. Neoclassical Conceptions of Competition∗ By Lefteris Tsoulfidis Associate Professor, Department of Economics University of Macedonia 156 Egnatia Street, 540 06, Thessaloniki, Greece Tel. 2310 891-788, Fax 2310 891-786 Homepage: http://econlab.uom.gr/~lnt/ Abstract This article discusses two major conceptions of competition, the classical and the neoclassical. In the classical conception, competition is viewed as a dynamic rivalrous process of firms struggling with each other over the expansion of their market shares. This dynamic view of competition characterizes mainly the works of Smith, Ricardo, J.S. Mill and Marx; a similar view can be also found in the writings of Austrian economists and the business literature. By contrast, the neoclassical conception of competition is derived from the requirements of a theory geared towards static equilibrium and not from any historical observation of the way in which firms actually organize and compete with each other. Key Words: B12, B13, B14, L11 JEL Classification Codes: Classical Competition, Regulating Capital, Incremental Rate of Return, Rate of Profit, Perfect Competition. 1. Introduction This article contrasts the classical and the neoclassical theories of competition, starting with the classical one as this was developed in the writings of Smith, Ricardo, J.S. Mill and more explicitly analyzed in Marx’s Capital. The claim that this paper raises is that the classical conception of competition despite its realism was gradually replaced by the neoclassical one, according to which competition is an end state rather than a description of the way in which firms organize and actually compete with each other.
  • An Evaluation of the Comparative Advantage Theory of Competition

    An Evaluation of the Comparative Advantage Theory of Competition

    View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by DCU Online Research Access Service DCU Business School RESEARCH PAPER SERIES PAPER NO. 2 1996 An Evaluation of the Comparative Advantage Theory of Competition Siobhain McGovern DCU Business School ISSN 1393-290X AN EVALUATION OF THE COMPARATIVE ADVANTAGE THEORY OF COMPETITION I. In a recent issue of the Journal of Marketing , Shelby Hunt and Robert Morgan outline a number of strategy oriented works in the field of marketing, and argue that this work is evolving toward a new theory of competition' (1995, 1). They argue that this new theory of competition `explains key macro and micro phenomena better than does neoclassical theory' (1995, 1). By neoclassical theory, they `mean the theory of perfect competition' (1995, 1). They argue that the comparative advantage theory of competition explains two phenomena, i) `why economies premised on competition are far superior to command economies in terms of the quantity, quality, and innovativeness of goods and services produced,' and ii) `the micro phenomenon of firm diversity' (1995, 2), by postulating a link between the firm's comparative advantage of resources and its ability to create a competitive advantage in the marketplace. This paper deals with two issues concerning Hunt and Morgan's argument. Firstly, it questions the validity of their claim that the comparative advantage theory of competition provides a better explanation of competition than the neoclassical theory of perfect competition. Secondly, it addresses the implication in Hunt and Morgan's paper that their comparative advantage theory has superior explanatory power to existing theories of competition.
  • Advanced Economic Analysis for Competition Enforcement 16 – 18 July 2018 DRAFT COURSE OUTLINE

    Advanced Economic Analysis for Competition Enforcement 16 – 18 July 2018 DRAFT COURSE OUTLINE

    4th ANNUAL COMPETITION AND ECONOMIC REGULATION (ACER) WEEK Advanced economic analysis for competition enforcement 16 – 18 July 2018 DRAFT COURSE OUTLINE Targeted at experienced competition economists from authorities, regulators, public and private sector firms and private practice, this intensive Professional Training Programme (PTP) will cover the latest developments in economic theory and their application to the analysis of competition cases. This PTP will cover frameworks for understanding abuse of dominance, coordinated conduct and mergers from theoretical and practical perspectives. It will equip participants with the specialist knowledge and skills required to undertake rigorous economic analysis in competition cases. The course will be facilitated by Dr Javier Tapia (Judge at the Competition Tribunal of the Republic of Chile and a senior researcher at Regcom, the Centre for Regulation and Competition at Universidad de Chile, Faculty of Law), Prof Liberty Mncube (Chief Economist at the Competition Commission of South Africa, Visiting Associate Professor of Economics, University of Witwatersrand and Honorary Professor of Economics, University of Stellenbosch), Dr Andrea Amelio (part of the European DG COMP’s Chief Economist Team) and Ms Reena das Nair, Senior Lecturer in the College of Business and Economics and Senior Researcher at the Centre for Competition, Regulation and Economic Development (CCRED) at the University of Johannesburg. Approach The PTP will be taught primarily by means of lectures, which will draw on international and South African examples and precedent-setting cases with a strong focus on underlying economic principles. The lectures will be complemented by case study exercises involving analysis of data and fact patterns by different groups who will present findings in feedback sessions.
  • Monopoly: a Game of Strategy…Or Luck? EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Serene Li Hui Heng , Xiaojun Jiang , Cheewei Ng, Li Xue Alison Then Team 5, MS&E220 Autumn 2008

    Monopoly: a Game of Strategy…Or Luck? EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Serene Li Hui Heng , Xiaojun Jiang , Cheewei Ng, Li Xue Alison Then Team 5, MS&E220 Autumn 2008

    Monopoly: A Game of Strategy…Or Luck? EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Serene Li Hui Heng , Xiaojun Jiang , Cheewei Ng, Li Xue Alison Then Team 5, MS&E220 Autumn 2008 A popular board game since 1935, Monopoly is a game that may be dependent on both luck and strategy. A player can bet on his or her own luck alone, think carefully and buy up strategic properties, or use strategy to complement his or her luck to gain dominance in the game. Our report seeks to present our findings on the importance of strategy in Monopoly, as well as which strategies are the most successful. So is Monopoly a game of strategy, or luck, or both? Our methodology involved examining the inter-relationships between the various factors in the game, for example, the throw of the 2 dice, the number of throws that a player has played, the number of rounds he is in, accounting for jail and rent etc. After establishing the inter-relations, we built up our model by gradually adding more factors (which increase uncertainty) that affect the game, and thereby incorporated more realism into the model. We thus proceeded to build 3 main models, by using dynamic equations. First we used the propagation of probability flow method to determine the chances of landing on a particular square in a given number of throws (Model 1). Next, we included regeneration points in the case where jail is considered (Model 2). Lastly, from the probability flow sequences obtained, we calculated the expected value of landing on each square on the board, taking into account the rents paid and $200 that a player gets each time after he passes a round, to analyze the wealth effect when multiple players are involved (Model 3).
  • Market-Structure.Pdf

    Market-Structure.Pdf

    This chapter covers the types of market such as perfect competition, monopoly, oligopoly and monopolistic competition, in which business firms operate. Basically, when we hear the word market, we think of a place where goods are being bought and sold. In economics, market is a place where buyers and sellers are exchanging goods and services with the following considerations such as: • Types of goods and services being traded • The number and size of buyers and sellers in the market • The degree to which information can flow freely Perfect or Pure Market Imperfect Market Perfect Market is a market situation which consists of a very large number of buyers and sellers offering a homogeneous product. Under such condition, no firm can affect the market price. Price is determined through the market demand and supply of the particular product, since no single buyer or seller has any control over the price. Perfect Competition is built on two critical assumptions: . The behavior of an individual firm . The nature of the industry in which it operates The firm is assumed to be a price taker The industry is characterized by freedom of entry and exit Industry • Normal demand and supply curves • More supply at higher price Firm • Price takers • Have to accept the industry price Perfect Competition cannot be found in the real world. For such to exist, the following conditions must be observed and required: A large number of sellers Selling a homogenous product No artificial restrictions placed upon price or quantity Easy entry and exit All buyers and sellers have perfect knowledge of market conditions and of any changes that occur in the market Firms are “price takers” There are very many small firms All producers of a good sell the same product There are no barriers to enter the market All consumers and producers have ‘perfect information’ Firms sell all they produce, but they cannot set a price.
  • Econ 460 Study Questions Fall 2013 MULTIPLE CHOICE. Choose the One Alternative That Best Completes the Statement Or Answer

    Econ 460 Study Questions Fall 2013 MULTIPLE CHOICE. Choose the One Alternative That Best Completes the Statement Or Answer

    Econ 460 Study Questions Fall 2013 MULTIPLE CHOICE. Choose the one alternative that best completes the statement or answers the question. 1) A monopoly might produce less than the socially optimal amount of pollution because 1) _______ A) it earns economic profit. B) it internalizes the external costs. C) it sets price above marginal cost. D) it likes to be a good citizen. 2) The above figure shows the market for steel ingots. If the market is competitive, then to achieve 2) _______ the socially optimal level of pollution, the government can A) institute a specific tax equal to area b. B) institute a specific tax of $50. C) institute a specific tax of $25. D) outlaw the production of steel. 3) The above figure shows the market for steel ingots. If the market is competitive, then the 3) _______ deadweight loss to society is A) a. B) b. C) c. D) zero. 4) The above figure shows the market for steel ingots. The optimal quantity of pollution 4) _______ A) is 100 units. B) is 50 units. C) is 0 units. D) cannot be determined from the information provided. 5) The above figure shows the market for steel ingots. If the market is competitive, then 5) _______ A) the socially optimal quantity of steel is zero. B) the socially optimal quantity of steel of 50 units is produced. C) more than the socially optimal quantity of 50 units of steel is produced. D) the socially optimal quantity of steel of 100 units is produced. 6) The exclusive privilege to use an asset is called a(n) 6) _______ A) property privilege.