Consider the property tax model. Assume that housing supply curve is upward sloping. Draw the following two diagrams.
1) a diagram showing equilibrium before the property tax on housing. Indicate equilibrium price, quantity, consumer surplus, and producer surplus on the diagram.
2) a diagram showing how equilibrium changes due to the property tax on housing. Specifically, mark the original equilibrium before tax, the new equilibrium after tax, tax burdens borne by developer and households, consumer surplus, producer surplus, government tax revenue, and deadweight loss due to the tax.

Consider a static model of labor supply. Assuming individuals have preferences represented by the utility function ? = ?α?(1-α) and face the following constraints ? = ?ℎ + ?, and ℎ = ? − ?, where C is consumption, L is hours of leisure, w is the hourly wage, h is hours of work, Y is non-labor income, and H is total time to split between work and leisure. (Hint: you can normalize the price of consumption to be one.)

a. What is the labor supply function?

b. What does the parameter ? represent?

Case Study: Launching Global Account Management at Parker Hannifin Corporation

Edmund Bradford and Anders Hagberg

Consider this: You have just been appointed the first Global Account Manager for a large decentralized business. Your account is a leading global brand. You have been appointed because of your ability to get things done without supervision and authority. You have no game-plan to work to and your success or failure will define the way that all strategic account management is done in the future. You have been told to develop a more strategic relationship, but you quickly discover that part of the existing business is at risk! This could be either the making or breaking of your career. What would be your first move?

This is the situation that Anders Hagberg faced and the story of what he did to help turn the relationship around.

Parker Hannifin Corp. is a world leader in motion and control technologies, with sales of $12billion, 57,000 employees and 417,000 customers in 1200 markets worldwide. The company is organized into eight global product groups (e.g. hydraulics and fluid connectors) subdivided into 118 divisions which together manufacture about 900,000 products. A strong country-by-country bias exists towards the divisional structure.

Parker serves three key sectors: aerospace (aircraft and space equipment), industrial (machine tools, factory assembly lines, entertainment equipment etc.) and mobile (on- and off-road equipment). Within mobile for example, Parker designs complete hydraulic systems and manufactures the components for all types of vehicles. It is often said that almost any manmade moving object has a Parker product on it or near it.

The Year Zero Situation

Traditionally Parker’s sales force has been organized around the product groups and the countries it served.

“At the beginning, we started work on synchronizing all our sales forces country-by-country to represent ‘One-Parker’ in front of our customers” says Anders Hagberg. “This sales structure worked well for certain customers, but the increasing demand from our global customers meant we needed to change our approach to them. We realized we needed to improve our synchronization between different countries and build better global relationships.”

So, Parker decided to create new key account roles for its top global accounts. Hagberg was appointed the first European-based global account executive for Parker and given the Large Vehicle Manufacturer (LVM) account to look after. (Large Vehicle Manufacturer is a pseudonym for the actual account in question.)

“We knew that LVM was a $25m account for one of our product divisions and a top account for group,” says Hagberg. “We also knew that LVM was an important account for other parts of Parker, however at that stage we didn’t know the total Parker sales to LVM.”

It was not long before he found that the relationship had some significant threats as well as opportunities. As a result of an Internet auction led by LVM’s procurement function, Hagberg was informed that an alternative lower-cost supplier had been identified. At the time, Parker had a company policy of not participating in Internet auctions and so had not involved itself. However, because the scope of the auction was so significant, it had submitted its current prices.

“When LVM compared our current prices to the best auction prices they told us that they had decided to source our products elsewhere.”

It was very apparent that not only did Parker need to coordinate its sales efforts to grow its business but it also needed a coordinated response to this threat just to keep its business. Hagberg’s appointment had been made just in time.

Year 1: Audit the Relationship and Fix the Problems

Before Hagberg could start building a long-term strategic plan he had to address this immediate threat. Valuable time had been bought for him by being new to the relationship and through his appointment demonstrating the importance of LVM to Parker.

“At one of my early meetings with LVM we discussed this situation. I asked for – and got – a second chance to propose a solution for them, then I set out to understand who was involved in the Parker-LVM business. I tried to identify and visit the most important people from both sides. I mapped out the people involved, sales, products, activities, issues and a lot of other important matters.”

Hagberg visited every LVM location around the world and every Parker location significantly involved with LVM. This was a major exercise. LVM had manufacturing sites in Sweden, Germany, France, Poland, Canada, US, Brazil, Korea and China. Parker has around 25 different manufacturing and sales sites around the world serving LVM. As lengthy as this process was, it proved invaluable in helping him audit the relationship thoroughly, assess the potential and prioritize the work to be done. And he was surprised at what he found.

“It was more complicated and fragmented than I thought. For example, there were many more people involved on both sides around the world than I first assumed.”

Hagberg also found a lack of effective coordination across the company and a basic unawareness of the total size of the LVM account. As a result, he immediately set to work to improve the communications mechanisms. The first mechanisms he set up included a:

• monthly LVM conference call between the key Parker sales representatives
• monthly report distributed to all Parker staff (both sales and operations) which showed key headlines about the relationship, including total sales by location and product group (for both Parker and LVM locations), business improvement activities, market and competitive climate for LVM and competitive issues for Parker. This provided a single point of information for all Parker’s global activities with LVM.
• a presentation about LVM and the Parker current and potential position of Parker. Hagberg carried this report on his travels for Parker and used the material to sell LVM’s importance.

“Because all of Parker working together and worked with our various LVM contacts, we had come up with a viable win-win solution. Through tying price adjustments and innovative product changes to long-term agreements, we were able to secure contracts between LVM and two of our product groups.”

The hard work had begun to pay off. This was a major relationship milestone and substantial improvement from the early days.

Year 2: Build your Transformation Strategy

Early on, Trier, Germany witnessed the first Parker-LVM team meeting, a significant event for Parker lasting three days. Participants included the vice president of global mobile sales, every sales representative and other key staff involved in the business. For the first-time Parker, had gathered all the right people from around the world focused purely on succeeding with one account. Everyone shared their activities with the other participants, and from this an initial three-year business strategy was developed.

Later that month Hagberg organized the first executive partnership development meeting, which pulled together the key senior executives from both companies. This included the presidents, VPs, and senior VPs of procurement and engineering from LVM.

“This meeting was very useful in building relations across the senior management of both companies. We were able to update everyone on current and future projects; advise Parker of LVM’s various business areas, objectives and organizations; and advise LVM of the global capabilities of Parker.”

The meeting also helped explore opportunities for closer cooperation, including Parker being involved earlier in the product development process. There were also discussions about possibilities for joint technology teams, and LVM had an opportunity to explain its strategy for framework agreements, warranty charters, performance scorecards, etc. The meeting turned out to be crucial in changing the relationship.

“Up to this point I had just been working at our day-to-day operational contacts. Here I managed to get contact with the corporate people and begin developing a more strategic relationship.”

Another key outcome from the meeting was the setting up of quarterly reviews with LVM’s VP of purchasing and supply management, the purchasing commodities director and the two VPs of corporate engineering.

Progress in the relationship and contracts was such that, within three months, Parker realized that it was at last considered a key partner to LVM with great potential for the future. Of the many reasons for this, the main ones were that Parker had now a speaking partner (the global account executive), the company had developed and was communicating one mission and one strategy globally; and the company had good mechanisms in place for joint resolution of important issues. The outlook appeared bright enough for Parker then to appoint a second global account executive to look after business units of LVM. The momentum established caused the account to be redefined as not simply LVM but the LVM corporation itself.

A big step was taken toward a formal global relationship when Parker worked with a specific internal product group to create one of its first globally coordinated solutions.

“We worked with all the divisions of the product group around the world that serve all the global LVM locations to create a very innovative solution that combines our global reach with local service capabilities wrapped up in one Parker contract. Although we have had to put a lot of effort internally to get here this will make the relationship a lot easier to manage from both sides.”

Year 3: Leverage the Relationship

Parker held its second executive partnership development meeting in October. It included Parker’s chairman & chief executive officer and other members of the CEO’s office, plus – from LVM’s side – the VP purchasing & supply management, the purchasing commodities director and the two VPs of corporate engineering. Both sides thought the meeting was extremely useful and agreed that they should meet annually, alternating between Europe and North America.

Now Hagberg is concentrating on developing the talent of local sales managers and has begun to train and mentor them in strategic account management. He has also made account management a more routine activity by establishing regular account review meetings. The European account team meets at least once a year, and there is a global account team meeting every 18 months at different product group locations.

He plans to develop both a common central database for LVM and account-level profit and loss statements. He also intends to create a specific budget for account management and to better link account plans to the Parker-LVM business planning process.

Introducing GAM at Parker has been a real eye-opener.

“In the past LVM knew more about Parker than we did. Our salespeople only knew their piece of the action. Today, because we are working globally sometimes we see more of the whole picture than our LVM contacts do, and we can help them achieve their goals better.”

Parker has built a strong foundation for growing its relationships with other strategic accounts. It has learned that when you start strategic or global account management, piloting with a single account can be more effective than simultaneously nurturing many accounts. The rewards may be less at first but so are the risks. In strategic account management, as in life, it may be better to focus on rearing one winner than spreading much mediocrity.

1. Discuss how Anders Hagberg demonstrated the planning strategies we discussed using Miller and Heiman’s “New Strategic Selling” approach. What additional Strategic Selling model planning strategies might he include? Include in your discussion the following elements:
   1. The overall Strategic Account Planning Process
   2. Identification and classification of relevant changes in the customer environment
   3. Clear definition of Strategic Sales Objectives
   4. Buying Influence and Analysis
   5. Presenting Win-Results

Explain Transaction Cost Analysis.

16. The natural rate of unemployment
(x) varies over time, but can’t be changed by the government.
(y) is the unemployment rate that the economy tends to move to in the long run.
(z) does not depend on the rate at which the Fed increases the money supply.
A. (x), (y) and (z)
B. (x) and (y) only
C. (x) and (z) only
D. (y) and (z) only
E. (z) only

17. According to the natural rate hypothesis (Friedman and Phelps), in the short run the economy will move to
a point on the Phillips curve where the unemployment rate is higher if,
A. the inflation rate decreases.
B. the government decreases taxes.
C. the Fed decreases the money supply.
D. All of the above
E. A and C, only

Find and provide example of Cartel as a type of Oligopoly. Has any cartel ever existed in all times in any country?
a)   Define Oligopoly and briefly describe its main conditions
b)   Define Cartel and briefly describe the main aims of cartel
c)   Describe and explain the outcomes of Cartel related to 2 areas:
d1) outcomes for sellers (good/bad, gain/loss)
d2) outcomes for consumers (good/bad, gain/loss)

There's a country with 1 company and 1 person.

A company's labor demand by matching MPN is w=B which is perfectly elastic

total time h=N+l , N for work time and l for leisure time

C is consumption.

to maximize a person's utility, U(C,l) = C^(1-a)l^a

desired C is (1-a)(w*h+b)

desired l is (a/w)(w*h+b)

labor supply curve is (1-a)*h-(a*b)/w

labor demand curve is B

is there anything wrong in this question? and verify this by matching aggregate supply and demand curve

Firms A and B are in a market of fixed size (Size = 1), developing a product for their customers. The more R and D they undertake i.e. the more time they spend, the better product they are able to launch in the market. However, the firms are facing a constraint; whoever launches their product first, will gain a market share of customers that cannot be transferred to their opponent. In this case the opponent will obtain the remainder of the customers in the market. If both A and B launch their product at the same time, the share of customers will be equally divided amongst them. Each firm has to choose time t at which they will launch their product in the market. The share of customers in the market is defined by the function f(t)=t where f(0)=0 and f(1)=1 (The share of customers in the market is a function that increases over time with the lowest share being 0 and the maximum share of customers equal to 1). Assume time and hence market share of customers is perfectly divisible over the spectrum of time defined as t = {0..............1}. Hint: This means that any fractional amount of time and hence market share is possible 1/3,1/4, 1/6 etc,

Kindly post the steps in detail

what is the microeconomics concept or model that explains below behavior. explain.

1) company A, a competitor of B in the same market segment nevertheless supplies Company B with many of the components that B needs.

2) controversy in spain last year over the payment of a tax on the creation of mortgages. In response to popular pressure, the govt decreed that this tax be paid entirely by the bak from now on, and not by consumer. Banks did not push back against this policy change, despite many folks views that they have a strong case if they chose to fight the government decree in court

3) while country A has emerged as a world leader in the design and production of industrial robots, most of its production is sold internationally, with less than 1% purchased by manufacturing companies in the country A. In fact, robot statistics show a very low degree of automation of the manufacturing industry in country A: 0.0003 robots/worker, as opposed to 0.0085 worldwide, 0.02 in US or 0.03 in japan.

Suppose a consumer’s demand function for a bar of chocolate produced by your firm is given by P=1-0.2Q. The firm’s cost is represented by the cost function of C(Q) = 0.2Q (assuming constant marginal cost and zero fixed cost).

(a) Under the normal uniform pricing strategy, what are the profit-maximizing quantity,

price, and profit?

(b) How can you increase your profit by block pricing/package deal? Show the solution

graphically.

(c) Despite your answer in (b) above, what are the possible reasons why the suppliers

might still charge a uniform price rather than using other pricing strategies?

(d) “A way to extract buyer surplus is to use block pricing, but when we observe block pricing in the real world, we should not conclude immediately that it is adopted for the purpose of extraction of buyer surplus.” Explain the meaning of this statement.

Give some real-world examples to illustrate your explanation.

How do people compete to obtain goods and services when the market system allocates them?

How does government protection of property from theft and destruction help the market system work bette

Why did productivity increase when the villagers in Xiaogang China privatized their land?

Question 01: Explain with examples what is the positive and nominative Economics.

.

Question 02. Game theory is the study of multi- player decision making in situation where the choices of each player may affect the pay-offs received by other players. Arrange how many types you can categorized Game Theory.

.

Note: Plagiarism is strictly prohibited please do not copy from internet and give the answer in detail

There's a country with 1 company and 1 person.

A company's total production, which is country's real GDP, is Y=B* N+b

A company's labor demand by matching MPN is w=B which is perfectly elastic

total time h=N+l N for work time and l for leisure time

C is consumption.

to maximize a person's utility, U(C,l) = C^(1-a)l^a

desired C is (1-a)(w*h+b)

desired l is (a/w)(w*h+b)

labor supply curve is (1-a)*h-(a*b)/w

labor demand curve is B

if there's a tax rate t and its tax revenue twN is a government revenue.

Show how this new tax will influence real gross domestic product and a person's desired consumption