Should the level of pollution be reduced to zero and if not, then to what level?
What will be an ideal response?
No, the level of pollution should not be reduced to zero because the benefits reaped from greater and greater amounts of pollution reduction may not justify the cost of those incremental cleanups. Pollution should be reduced up to the point where the marginal benefit of pollution reduction equals the marginal cost of pollution reduction.
You might also like to view...
The tables above show a nation's labor demand and labor supply schedules and its production function. Given the equilibrium in the labor market, potential GDP is
A) $3.0 trillion. B) $3.7 trillion. C) $4.2 trillion. D) $4.5 trillion. E) $2.0 trillion.
The portion of income which is earned in the form of wages for labor is about
a. 15% b. 35% c. 51% d. 60%
When exchange rates are set by government decree,
a. appreciation is called devaluation. b. depreciation is called devaluation. c. depreciation is called deflation. d. appreciation is called inflation.
As the Fed maintained interest rates at near zero during 2008-2012,
a. the economy recovered and the unemployment rate fell to normal levels. b. households and businesses held larger money balances and the velocity of money fell substantially. c. stock prices declined during 2010-2012, causing the economy to remain weak. d. the earnings senior citizens derived from saving deposits and other forms of savings rose substantially, leading to higher incomes and a strong increase in aggregate demand.