Post Your Economics Question Here

Hi, thanks for the help last time but I have another question I don't get on my practice exam,and they show therr work however I don't get how they did what they did, I would appreciate if anyone can better explain to me the answer:

The Question:
22) The market for widgets has demand QD= 100 - P (where QDis the quantity
demanded and P is the price per widget). Any firm that chooses to produce widgets has
costs of production TC = q + 10 (where q isthe quantity produced by that firm). When
firms operate in this market, their interactions conform to those of the Cournot model
(and potential entrants expect this to be the case). If firms can freely enter and exit this
market, in the long-run equilibrium how many firms will be making and selling widgets?
a) 30
b) 15
c) 10
d) 2
e) 1

The answer is A and they attempt to show their work but I don't get why they did what they did, here is the solution (img because it looked weird when coping it here):

in the third line, where did 99 come from, it might sound like a dumb question but I am sure it will make a lot more sense, once i get that .

X

http://www.thestudentroom.co.uk/showthread.php?t=2070198

Any help~?

Short selling involves borrowing the share (or whatever you want to short sell), selling it, waiting for the price to fall, buying it back, and then returning the share to its owner, taking the difference in price as your profit. However, if the price rises instead then you need to buy it back at a higher price in order to return the share to its owner, hence exposing yourself to potentially huge losses.

I understand, but why can you sometimes not short sell in some companies? Also, how could a broker profit knowing that he is holding stocks that aren't doing well (or won't do well on a long run, if people keep highlighting them as stocks to short)?

I'm trying to understand what caused the US recession in 2008 and I think I'm a bit confused.

"The US economy suffered a small recession as the tech bubble burst; they lowered interest rates and deregulation was occurring, creating another bubble, a housing bubble. When house prices started to drop, people were in trouble, many people owed more on their mortgages than the value of their house, many were forced into foreclosure and demand fell."

Thats a small summary of the recession I'm going to base my essay on. First of all, is it right?

And can someone explain:

1. How deregulation and low interest rates caused a housing bubble and how it inflated it.
2. Why did house prices suddenly fall? what triggered it?

explaining the US recession in just a paragraph or two will not do it justice. if you want to gain a true insight into how the recession occurred the best way is to read a book. i strongly recommend 'End this Depression Now' by Paul Krugman as it also gives some ideas on how to fix it (much more relevant in terms of the present)

I really have to try summarise it in a paragraph. I'm reading Freefall by Stiglitz and thats where I've got my summary from so far but it doesn't explain it very well or at least its pretty difficult to understand.

OK well basically the laws on financial deregulation meant that banks were giving out loans with high yields, but high risk, due to the profitability of it. This risk taking meant that people were not able to pay off their loans (including mortgages). As a result the banks became financially weak and were unwilling to give out loans - hence the credit crunch. The lack of unavailable credit caused demand for housing to decline so due to free market forces the price of houses fell. This was a problem for consumers as they went underwater on their debt (their mortgage was more than the actual value of the house). This combined with the failure of the banks caused the recession.

Sorry for the bad English but it's late and I'm tired

Thanks, I more or less had it :P. Your at university I'm presuming?

nope haha, i am a 2013 applicant hoping to go to uni :P