Economic efficiency can be seen to maximizing total utility from a given amount of scarce resources. There are two types of economic efficiency—allocative efficiency and productive efficiency. According to their definitions, the idea of allocative efficiency is that “consumers pay firms exactly what the marginal cost is (Price=Marginal cost)…such a pricing strategy can be shown to be a key condition if achieving a ‘Pareto optimum’ resource allocation, where it is no longer possible to make anyone ‘better-off’ without making someone else ‘worse-off’.” (Griffiths and Wall, p93) When this condition is satisfied, total consumer and producer’s surplus are maximized. Alternatively, productive efficiency is about how to produce a good or service. To achieve productive efficiency, a firm must use all available methods to produce a certain level of output at the lowest possible costs.
As a result, exceptions to the rules are necessary but the theory does not allow it, which can lead to unfavorable results. Also, the fact that an action needs to be seen as universally acceptable before being performed is a major drawback. Similar to the lack of exceptions, a rule cannot apply to all situations and people. In some cases a certain act will be considered right and, in other cases, the opposite of that act will be considered right. However, due to the steadfastness of Deontology, the wavering of acts is not
If an action is chosen and unaccounted consequences occur, how far back does the chain of accountability go? Because of this, there is no clear solution in utilitarianism because often times, unexpected consequences do occur in which someone is needed to be held accountable for. These arguments are not to say that that there is a problem with every cost-benefit analysis when it comes to morality because there has to be some way to decide between one action and another. That being said, however, utilitarianism simply has too many undetermined and unclear issues with their set of beliefs and processes for making decisions.
a.) Perfect competition is used to benchmark allocative efficiency in market structure. It can be considered as unrealistic but still, characteristics of perfect competition guarantees efficiency. To demonstrate perfection is in fact the main purpose of perfect competition, it helps to evaluate the physical world market structure that certainly fall short of this perfection and illustrate the best of all possible resource allocation worlds. With perfect competition efficiency is achieved because the price is equal to marginal cost.
Economics, in one aspect, is the study of how individuals, societies, and countries manage to deal with the problem of scarcity. Scarcity is a problem within economics because the wants of people are unlimited and the resources available to fulfil those wants are finite (Sloman, 2001). The answer to scarcity is efficiency which Gowland and Paterson (1993) described as the most benefit from a certain amount of scarce resources. Within the economic system, there are several types of economies, each generating a different level of efficiency. It is said that an economic system that has allocative efficiency, productive efficiency, and equity will be effective.
Although, when growth is looked at over the long term, the trade-off between efficiency and equality may not be as prominent and equality may appear to be an important ingredient in promoting and sustaining growth. Because of this contrast, it is essential to explore the relationship and impact of the two criterions on the economy. Economic efficiency is a capitalistic process that intends to uses the lowest amount of input to create the greatest amount of outputs. These inputs such as personal time, energy, money and raw materials are scarce resources that would need to be conserved while maintaining an acceptable production level. With such definition, it is commonly agreed that efficiency is a good criteria and can be used to evaluate economies and economic behavior.
This is called the value of relationship. The theory argues you can calculate this value by the rewards minus costs. Positive relationships are ones with a positive value, the rewards outweigh the costs. Negative relationships are ones with a negative value, the costs outweigh the rewards. The Social Exchange theory provides evidence to be able to predict that a worth of a current relationship influences its outcomes.
In anoth... ... middle of paper ... ...g the intention is, or how certain we feel about it”, (Enoch and Marmor, p. 422). Williams’s and Nagel’s concept of moral luck encounter more disagreement than being agreed since moral luck is not universally applicable in every situation. The existence of either motive or agent-regret will, in some cases, be enigma since they are private matter and unknown to the rest of us. Therefore, the case of moral luck has been yet remains unsolved due to its inconsistency. On the other hand, if motives and intentions (of being moral) are not counted and/or agent-regret does exist, it will be unfair to the person who is incorrectly treated since the result is actually out of their control.
If we did not believe any inference made via induction, our knowledge of the world would be very (omit) lacking, and it would be almost impossible to know anything at all. Thus it would be rational to trust in inductive inferences and the fact that the future will resemble the past, because if we do not then we are subject to widespread skepticism, which would severely (sp) affect our pursuit of knowledge.
This can lead to tricky situations in which the logic itself can be perfect and yet still yield a false result. What does it mean to verify something? This is where things get difficult. Since it is very hard to know if we actually know anything, we can never verify something completely. This concept is well out of the scope of this paper, but it is important to understand that complete verification is impossible, and endlessly inefficient, so we must be satisfied with a certain amount of verification.