Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Dwnload Full Principles of Microeconomics 6th Edition Frank Solutions Manual PDF
Dwnload Full Principles of Microeconomics 6th Edition Frank Solutions Manual PDF
Dwnload Full Principles of Microeconomics 6th Edition Frank Solutions Manual PDF
https://testbankfan.com/download/principles-of-microeconomics-6th-edition-frank-solu
tions-manual/
2. A reduction in the number of hours worked each day will shift all points on the
production possibilities curve inward, toward the origin, as this reduces the maximum
amount that can be produced of either good. The graph below illustrates this situation.
Coffee
(lb/day)
PPC 1
PPC 2
Nuts (lb/day)
Learning Objective: 02-03
AACSB: Reflective Thinking
Bloom’s: Understand
3. Technological innovations that boost labor productivity will shift all points on the
production possibilities curve outward, away from the origin. The graph below illustrates
this situation.
1
© 2016 by McGraw-Hill Education. This is proprietary material solely for authorized instructor use. Not authorized for sale or distribution in
any manner. This document may not be copied, scanned, duplicated, forwarded, distributed, or posted on a website, in whole or part.
PPC2
PPC
1
Nuts (lb/day)
Learning Objective: 02-03
AACSB: Reflective Thinking
Bloom’s: Understand
4. According to the Principle of Comparative Advantage, people will perform their own
services when the opportunity cost of doing so is low. This implies that performing
services yourself is not a matter of whether you are rich or poor but rather the opportunity
cost of your time. Furthermore, limited specialization will mean less overall production
for a nation, which is usually interpreted as poverty.
5. The fact that English has become the de facto international language has done much
to stimulate international demand for American-made books, movies and popular music.
The large size of the American market has given the United States an additional
advantage over other English-speaking countries, like England, Canada, and Australia.
Answers to Problems
1. In the time it takes Ted to wash a car he can wax three cars, which is his
opportunity cost of washing one car. In the time it takes Tom to wash one car, he can wax
two cars, which is his opportunity cost of washing one car.
2
© 2016 by McGraw-Hill Education. This is proprietary material solely for authorized instructor use. Not authorized for sale or distribution in
any manner. This document may not be copied, scanned, duplicated, forwarded, distributed, or posted on a website, in whole or part.
Alternatively, you can compute how many cars each person can wash or wax in a certain
time period, such as an hour, and then use these quantities to compute their respective
opportunity costs: Ted can wash one car or wax three, so his opportunity cost of washing
one car is 3 (or 3/1) wax jobs. Likewise, Tom can wash two cars or wax four, so his
opportunity cost of washing one car is 2 (or 4/2) wax jobs.
Because Tom’s opportunity cost of washing a car is lower than Ted’s, Tom has a
comparative advantage in washing cars.
2. In the time it takes Nancy to replace a set of brakes she can complete one-half of a
clutch replacement; her opportunity cost of replacing a set of brakes is therefore one-half
of a clutch replacement. In the time it takes Bill to replace a set of brakes, he can
complete one-third of a clutch replacement; his opportunity cost of replacing a set of
brakes is therefore one-third of a clutch replacement.
Alternatively, you can compute how many clutches or brakes each person can replace in
a certain time period, such as 6 hours, and then use these quantities to compute their
respective opportunity cost: Nancy can replace 1.5 clutches or 3 sets of brakes in that
time, so her opportunity cost of replacing one set of brakes is one-half of a clutch
replacement (1.5/3). Likewise, Bill can replace 1 clutch or 3 sets of brakes, so his
opportunity cost of replacing one set of brakes is one-third of a clutch replacement (1/3).
Bill’s opportunity cost of replacing a set of brakes is lower than Nancy’s, so Bill has a
comparative advantage in replacing brakes. This also implies that Nancy has a
comparative advantage in replacing clutches. Finally, Nancy has an absolute advantage
over Bill in replacing clutches since it takes her two hours less than it takes Bill to
perform that job. Since Nancy and Bill take the same amount of time to replace a set of
brakes, neither person has an absolute advantage in that task.
3
© 2016 by McGraw-Hill Education. This is proprietary material solely for authorized instructor use. Not authorized for sale or distribution in
any manner. This document may not be copied, scanned, duplicated, forwarded, distributed, or posted on a website, in whole or part.
Another random document with
no related content on Scribd:
Proclamation of Sept. 22, 1862.
By the President:
Abraham Lincoln.
By the President:
William H. Seward,
Secretary of State.
A. G. Curtin,
John A. Andrew,
Richard Yates,
Israel Washburne, Jr.,
Edward Solomon,
Samuel J. Kirkwood,
O. P. Morton,
By D. G. Rose, his representative,
Wm. Sprague,
F. H. Peirpoint,
David Tod,
N. S. Berry,
Austin Blair.
Repeal of the Fugitive Slave Law.
The first fugitive slave law passed was that of February 12th, 1793,
the second and last that of September 18th, 1850. Various efforts had
been made to repeal the latter before the war of the rebellion,
without a prospect of success. The situation was now different. The
war spirit was high, and both Houses of Congress were in the hands
of the Republicans as early as December, 1861, but all of them were
not then ready to vote for repeal, while the Democrats were at first
solidly against it. The bill had passed the Senate in 1850 by 27 yeas to
12 nays; the House by 109 yeas to 76 nays, and yet as late as 1861
such was still the desire of many not to offend the political prejudices
of the Border States and of Democrats whose aid was counted upon
in the war, that sufficient votes could not be had until June, 1864, to
pass the repealing bill. Republican sentiment advanced very slowly in
the early years of the war, when the struggle looked doubtful and
when there was a strong desire to hold for the Union every man and
county not irrevocably against it; when success could be foreseen the
advances were more rapid, but never as rapid as the more radical
leaders desired. The record of Congress in the repeal of the Fugitive
Slave Law will illustrate this political fact, in itself worthy of grave
study by the politician and statesman, and therefore we give it as
compiled by McPherson:—
[22]
Second Session, Thirty-Seventh Congress.
REPEALING BILLS.
1864, April 19, the Senate considered the bill to repeal all acts for
the rendition of fugitives from service or labor. The bill was taken up
—yeas 26, nays 10.
Mr. Sherman moved to amend by inserting these words at the end
of the bill:
Except the act approved February 12, 1793, entitled “An act
respecting fugitives from justice, and persons escaping from the
service of their masters.”
Which was agreed to—yeas 24, nays 17, as follows:
Yeas—Messrs. Buckalew, Carlile, Collamer, Cowan, Davis, Dixon,
Doolittle, Foster, Harris, Henderson, Hendricks, Howe, Johnson,
Lane of Indiana, McDougall, Nesmith, Powell, Riddle, Saulsbury,
Sherman, Ten Eyck, Trumbull, Van Winkle, Willey—24.
Nays—Messrs. Anthony, Brown, Clark, Conness, Fessenden,
Grimes, Hale, Howard, Lane of Kansas, Morgan, Morrill, Pomeroy,
Ramsey, Sprague, Sumner, Wilkinson, Wilson—17.
Mr. Saulsbury moved to add these sections:
And be it further enacted, That no white inhabitant of the United
States shall be arrested, or imprisoned, or held to answer for a
capital or otherwise infamous crime, except in cases arising in the
land or naval forces, or in the militia when in actual service in time of
war or public danger, without due process of law.
And be it further enacted, That no person engaged in the
executive, legislative, or judicial departments of the Government of
the United States, or holding any office or trust recognized in the
Constitution of the United States, and no person in military or naval
service of the United States, shall, without due process of law, arrest
or imprison any white inhabitant of the United States who is not, or
has not been, or shall not at the time of such arrest or imprisonment
be, engaged in levying war against the United States, or in adhering
to the enemies of the United States, giving them aid and comfort, nor
aid, abet, procure or advise the same, except in cases arising in the
land or naval forces, or in the militia when in actual service in time of
war or public danger. And any person as aforesaid so arresting, or
imprisoning, or holding, as aforesaid, as in this and the second
section of this act mentioned, or aiding, abetting, or procuring, or
advising the same, shall be deemed guilty of felony, and, upon
conviction thereof in any court of competent jurisdiction, shall be
imprisoned for a term of not less than one nor more than five years,
shall pay a fine of not less than $1,000 nor more than $5000, and
shall be forever incapable of holding any office or public trust under
the Government of the United States.
Mr. Hale moved to strike out the word “white” wherever it occurs;
which was agreed to.
The amendment of Mr. Saulsbury, as amended, was then
disagreed to—yeas 9, nays 27, as follows:
Yeas—Messrs. Buckalew, Carlile, Cowan, Davis, Hendricks,
McDougall, Powell, Riddle, Saulsbury—9.
Nays—Messrs. Anthony, Clark, Collamer, Conness, Doolittle,
Fessenden, Foster, Grimes, Hale, Harris, Howard, Howe, Lane of
Indiana, Lane, of Kansas, Morgan, Morrill, Pomeroy, Ramsey,
Sherman, Sprague, Sumner, Ten Eyck, Trumbull, Van Winkle,
Wilkinson, Willey, Wilson—27.
Mr. Conness moved to table the bill; which was disagreed to—yeas
9, (Messrs. Buckalew, Carlile, Conness, Davis, Hendricks, Nesmith,
Powell, Riddle, Saulsbury,) nays 31.
It was not again acted upon.
1864, June 13—The House passed this bill, introduced by Mr.
Spalding, of Ohio, and reported from the Committee on the
Judiciary by Mr. Morris, of New York, as follows:
Be it enacted, etc., that sections three and four of an act entitled
“An act respecting fugitives from justice and persons escaping from
the service of their masters,” passed February 12, 1793, and an Act
entitled “An act to amend, and supplementary to, the act entitled ‘An
act respecting fugitives from justice, and persons escaping from their
masters,’ passed February 12, 1793,” passed September 18, 1850, be,
and the same are hereby, repealed.
Yeas 86, nays 60, as follows:
Yeas—Messrs. Alley, Allison, Ames, Arnold, Ashley, John D.
Baldwin, Baxter, Beaman, Blaine, Blair, Blow, Boutwell, Boyd,
Brandegee, Broomall, Ambrose W. Clarke, Freeman Clark, Cobb,
Cole, Creswell, Henry Winter Davis, Thomas T. Daavis, Dawes,
Dixon, Donnelly, Driggs, Eckley, Eliot, Farnsworth, Fenton, Frank,
Garfield, Gooch, Griswold, Higby, Hooper, Hotchkiss, Asahel W.
Hubbard, John K. Hubbard, Hulburd, Ingersoll, Jenckes, Julian,
Kelley, Francis W. Kellogg, O. Kellogg, Littlejohn, Loan, Longyear,
Marvin, McClurg, McIndoe, Samuel F. Miller, Moorhead, Morrill,
Daniel Morris, Amos Myers, Leonard Myers, Norton, Charles O’Neill,
Orth, Patterson, Perham, Pike, Price, Alexander H. Rice, John H.
Rice, Schenck, Scofield, Shannon, Sloan, Spalding, Starr, Stevens,
Thayer, Thomas, Tracy, Upson, Van Valkenburgh, Webster, Whaley,
Williams, Wilder, Wilson, Windom, Woodbridge—86.
Nays—Messrs. James C. Allen, William J. Allen, Ancona,
Augustus C. Baldwin, Bliss, Brooks, James S. Brown, Chanler,
Coffroth, Cox, Cravens, Dawson, Denison, Eden, Edgerton,
Eldridge, English, Finck, Ganson, Grider, Harding, Harrington,
Charles M. Harris, Herrick, Holman, Hutchins, Kalbfleisch, Kernan,
King, Knapp, Law, Lazear, Le Blond, Mallory, Marcy, McDowell,
McKinney, Wm. H. Miller, James R. Morris, Morrison, Odell,
Pendleton, Pruyn, Radford, Robinson, Jas. S. Rollins, Ross,
Smithers, John B. Steele, Wm. G. Steele, Stiles, Strouse, Stuart,
Sweat, Wadsworth, Ward, Wheeler, Chilton A. White, Joseph W.
White, Fernando Wood—60.
June 22—This bill was taken up in the Senate, when Mr.
Saulsbury moved this substitute:
That no person held to service or labor in one State, under the laws
thereof, escaping into another, shall, in consequence of any law or
regulation therein, be discharged from such service or labor, but
shall be delivered up on claim of the party to whom such service or
labor may be due; and Congress shall pass all necessary and proper
laws for the rendition of all such persons who shall so, as aforesaid,
escape.
Which was rejected—yeas 9, nays 29, as follows:
Yeas—Messrs. Buckalew, Carlile, Cowan, Davis, McDougall,
Powell, Richardson, Riddle, Saulsbury—9.
Nays—Messrs. Anthony, Brown, Chandler, Clark, Conness, Dixon,
Foot, Grimes, Hale, Harlan, Harris, Hicks, Howard, Howe, Johnson,
Lane of Indiana, Lane of Kansas, Morgan, Morrill, Pomeroy,
Ramsey, Sprague, Sumner, Ten Eyck, Trumbull, Van Winkle, Wade,
Willey—29.
Mr. Johnson, of Maryland, moved an amendment to substitute a
clause repealing the act of 1850; which was rejected—yeas 17, nays
22, as follows:
Yeas—Messrs. Buckalew, Carlile, Cowan, Davis, Harris, Hicks,
Johnson, Lane of Indiana, McDougall, Powell, Richardson, Riddle,
Saulsbury, Ten Eyck, Trumbull, Van Winkle, Willey—17.
Nays—Messrs. Anthony, Brown, Chandler, Clark, Conness, Dixon,
Fessenden, Foot, Grimes, Hale, Harlan, Howard, Howe, Lane of
Kansas, Morgan, Morrill, Pomeroy, Ramsey, Sprague, Sumner,
Wade, Wilson—22.
The bill then passed—yeas 27, nays 12, as follows:
Yeas—Messrs. Anthony, Brown, Chandler, Clark, Conness, Dixon,
Fessenden, Foot, Grimes, Hale, Harlan, Harris, Hicks, Howard,
Howe, Lane of Indiana, Lane of Kansas, Morgan, Morrill, Pomeroy,
Ramsey, Sprague, Sumner, Ten Eyck, Trumbull, Wade, Wilson—27.
Nays—Messrs. Buckalew, Carlile, Cowan, Davis, Johnson,
McDougall, Powell, Richardson, Riddle, Saulsbury, Van Winkle,
Willey—12.
Abraham Lincoln, President, approved it, June 28, 1864.
Seward as Secretary of State.
INTERNAL TAXES.
The system of internal revenue taxes imposed during the war did
not evenly divide parties until near its close, when Democrats were
generally arrayed against these taxes. They cannot, from the record,
be correctly classed as political issues, yet their adoption and the
feelings since engendered by them, makes a brief summary of the
record essential.
First Session, Thirty-Seventh Congress.
The bill to provide increased revenue from imports, &c., passed the
House August 2, 1861—yeas 89, nays 39.
Same day, it passed the Senate—yeas 34, nays 8, (Messrs.
Breckinridge, Bright, Johnson, of Missouri, Kennedy, Latham, Polk,
Powell, Saulsbury.)[24]
Second Session, Thirty-Seventh Congress.