這裡解答一些有關機票減價那道題目的問題，因這些問題可用作示範如何驗證假說 (hypothesis)，有助同學思考。
問題一 by Anonymous ：
forQ9C
if i say there are only a few of first-class seat, the dicount policy will increase the administration cost ( transaction cost ).The transaction cost will rise the average price of the first-class seat in a higher amount .
Also if the cost of adopting the disounting arrangement is higher than the earning of adopting arrangement , then the arrangement wont exist .
由於頭等的座位少, 用 discount 既話會增加交易費用(行政費用), 而基於交易費用會平均攤分比頭等的機票, 所以每張頭等機票的價格會上升, 假如採用discount所賺既earning少過交費成本, 頭等機票便不會有discount
IS IT CORRECT ??
解答：
要實施減價安排，當然需要一些負責票務的人手從事，但經濟客位已有減價的安排，即航空公司已有票務人員從事減價的安排，這些人員熟知價格變動及減價的時間和幅度；為頭等客位減價是無需增設獨立團隊 (team of staff) 然後按經濟客位和頭等客位各自攤分這些成本的。而頭等客位的數量遠少於經濟客位，要就頭等客位減價根本無需多聘甚麼人手（即使多聘人手也不會令平均成本上升）。
問題二 by Anonymous ：
Is it possible to explain the pricing tatics by aruging that given the existence of info cost, lowering the price of first class ticket would mean a poorer service offered to consumers?
解答：
原來的票價固然反映了服務的質素。減價的安排並非劃一將票價調低，而是有空位時作出不同的減幅。這裡涉及的是減價安排，而非劃一調低票價。減價安排會減低服務質素這論點解釋不了為何經濟客位提供減價安排。在減價安排下，不同的服務質素必然存在相應的價格，邏輯上你不能說經濟客位可以在減價安排下有這樣的一個價，而頭等客位則沒有。
另簡覆一些其他問題。
問題三 by Anonymous：
我想問關於第5題，那條題目的意思是指每個國家一單位資源的產出如下，那為什麼題目中的資料是or，而不是and呢?? 我的意思是指，那個題目given的圖表，為什麼不是指在1單位資源下所能夠生產的x and y and z 的的數量，而係x or y or z的數量呢??
question 5 題目既字眼好難分辨到係一單位生產所有物品or只生產到一物品, 以前者既方法計算，就此全軍覆沒？多謝指教。
解答：
從題中的「下表顯示各國使用一單位的投入可生產的產出的數量」及三種物品以三個獨立的欄（separate columns）分列，正常的理解是（就A國而言）一單位的投入可生產的物品X為1，一單位的投入可生產的物品Y為2，一單位的投入可生產的物品Z為 1.5，如此類推。再者，若把物品X、Y及Z的產出理解為一單位的投入同時可生產的物品，題中應附有關於在三種物品之間的投入分配，否則不能計算 (a) 至 (d) 的答案。
（續）問題三 by Anonymous：
多謝阿sir百忙之中抽空回應，但用and仍可以做計到a至d的答案...
以(a)為例依阿sir你理解，是1x or 2y or 1.5z，然後出到(a)部份A國的機會成本資料, 但如果用and的話，就是1x and 2y and 1.5z，即是3x or 6y or 4.5z，同樣地可以出到相同比例的機會成本資料。不過之後b,c,d答案就會三倍化，理解有錯嗎?
再一次多謝阿sir回應...
解答：
若你假設是 AND 的話，你需要假設三國皆平均分配資源才可計算出機會成本及餘下的其他部份。
問題四 by Anonymous：
請問如果第六題, 我寫consumption coupon係增加mpc, 因為consumption coupon令貨品價格下趺, 合理嗎?^^
請問如果第六條, 我寫consumption coupon 影響mpc, 因為價格下趺,mpc上升, 合理嗎??^^
解答：
消費函數是可用收入的函數 (consumption function is a function of disposable income)；而在 Elementary Keynesian Model 中價格是假設為不變的。
另外，有些同學問「評級的問題」一貼中所說的 75 所除的總分是多少。同學是沒有看懂我的文章了。多看一遍吧。
這裡貼上已答覆的問題，方便同學閱讀。
by abbc1332：
For question 6(b)
Do you think that a loss to the employer due to the choice of share contract is a possible answer? I answer it based on 佃農理論 and my final conclusion is that other contract will be chosen by the employer to avoid that part of loss.
For qustion 7(b)
My answer is: A transferable license can lower the information cost of hunter since they are now no need to know fully about their own productivity in advance.(If they found they loss money hunting there, they can simplily sell it to others.)So, with a restrictive supply, the price should gone up as well as the revenue. Is it possible answer?
解答：
Actually there is no need for you to answer the question with "the theory of share tenancy", which could possibly cover issues ranging from the invariance of contractual arrangements (with full consideration of the constraint of competition) to the choice of contracts under different constraints, to the prediction of farming intensity under share restriction, &c., &c. Of course, the choice of contracts subject to TC constraints is always important in AL exam, but before you use any concepts uncovered in the syllabus you must make sure that you understand those concepts accurately. And you would do it better by considering the constraints in different scenarios without confining yourself to something you may have learnt. Anyway, the focus of the question lies more on why factories do not turn to use share contracts to evade the employer-employee relationship (i.e. the problem of using share contract). If you can point out why other contractual arrangements can evade such relationship at a low transaction costs than the share contracts, definitely it's a reasoned answer.
It's unclear what you mean by restrictive supply --- you are probably referring to a fixed quantity. Actually the licence issuing department would sell less licences when the licences are transferable. Don't worry. Most candidates would do the same.
問題一 by Anonymous ：
forQ9C
if i say there are only a few of first-class seat, the dicount policy will increase the administration cost ( transaction cost ).The transaction cost will rise the average price of the first-class seat in a higher amount .
Also if the cost of adopting the disounting arrangement is higher than the earning of adopting arrangement , then the arrangement wont exist .
由於頭等的座位少, 用 discount 既話會增加交易費用(行政費用), 而基於交易費用會平均攤分比頭等的機票, 所以每張頭等機票的價格會上升, 假如採用discount所賺既earning少過交費成本, 頭等機票便不會有discount
IS IT CORRECT ??
解答：
要實施減價安排，當然需要一些負責票務的人手從事，但經濟客位已有減價的安排，即航空公司已有票務人員從事減價的安排，這些人員熟知價格變動及減價的時間和幅度；為頭等客位減價是無需增設獨立團隊 (team of staff) 然後按經濟客位和頭等客位各自攤分這些成本的。而頭等客位的數量遠少於經濟客位，要就頭等客位減價根本無需多聘甚麼人手（即使多聘人手也不會令平均成本上升）。
問題二 by Anonymous ：
Is it possible to explain the pricing tatics by aruging that given the existence of info cost, lowering the price of first class ticket would mean a poorer service offered to consumers?
解答：
原來的票價固然反映了服務的質素。減價的安排並非劃一將票價調低，而是有空位時作出不同的減幅。這裡涉及的是減價安排，而非劃一調低票價。減價安排會減低服務質素這論點解釋不了為何經濟客位提供減價安排。在減價安排下，不同的服務質素必然存在相應的價格，邏輯上你不能說經濟客位可以在減價安排下有這樣的一個價，而頭等客位則沒有。
另簡覆一些其他問題。
問題三 by Anonymous：
我想問關於第5題，那條題目的意思是指每個國家一單位資源的產出如下，那為什麼題目中的資料是or，而不是and呢?? 我的意思是指，那個題目given的圖表，為什麼不是指在1單位資源下所能夠生產的x and y and z 的的數量，而係x or y or z的數量呢??
question 5 題目既字眼好難分辨到係一單位生產所有物品or只生產到一物品, 以前者既方法計算，就此全軍覆沒？多謝指教。
解答：
從題中的「下表顯示各國使用一單位的投入可生產的產出的數量」及三種物品以三個獨立的欄（separate columns）分列，正常的理解是（就A國而言）一單位的投入可生產的物品X為1，一單位的投入可生產的物品Y為2，一單位的投入可生產的物品Z為 1.5，如此類推。再者，若把物品X、Y及Z的產出理解為一單位的投入同時可生產的物品，題中應附有關於在三種物品之間的投入分配，否則不能計算 (a) 至 (d) 的答案。
（續）問題三 by Anonymous：
多謝阿sir百忙之中抽空回應，但用and仍可以做計到a至d的答案...
以(a)為例依阿sir你理解，是1x or 2y or 1.5z，然後出到(a)部份A國的機會成本資料, 但如果用and的話，就是1x and 2y and 1.5z，即是3x or 6y or 4.5z，同樣地可以出到相同比例的機會成本資料。不過之後b,c,d答案就會三倍化，理解有錯嗎?
再一次多謝阿sir回應...
解答：
若你假設是 AND 的話，你需要假設三國皆平均分配資源才可計算出機會成本及餘下的其他部份。
問題四 by Anonymous：
請問如果第六題, 我寫consumption coupon係增加mpc, 因為consumption coupon令貨品價格下趺, 合理嗎?^^
請問如果第六條, 我寫consumption coupon 影響mpc, 因為價格下趺,mpc上升, 合理嗎??^^
解答：
消費函數是可用收入的函數 (consumption function is a function of disposable income)；而在 Elementary Keynesian Model 中價格是假設為不變的。
另外，有些同學問「評級的問題」一貼中所說的 75 所除的總分是多少。同學是沒有看懂我的文章了。多看一遍吧。
這裡貼上已答覆的問題，方便同學閱讀。
by abbc1332：
For question 6(b)
Do you think that a loss to the employer due to the choice of share contract is a possible answer? I answer it based on 佃農理論 and my final conclusion is that other contract will be chosen by the employer to avoid that part of loss.
For qustion 7(b)
My answer is: A transferable license can lower the information cost of hunter since they are now no need to know fully about their own productivity in advance.(If they found they loss money hunting there, they can simplily sell it to others.)So, with a restrictive supply, the price should gone up as well as the revenue. Is it possible answer?
解答：
Actually there is no need for you to answer the question with "the theory of share tenancy", which could possibly cover issues ranging from the invariance of contractual arrangements (with full consideration of the constraint of competition) to the choice of contracts under different constraints, to the prediction of farming intensity under share restriction, &c., &c. Of course, the choice of contracts subject to TC constraints is always important in AL exam, but before you use any concepts uncovered in the syllabus you must make sure that you understand those concepts accurately. And you would do it better by considering the constraints in different scenarios without confining yourself to something you may have learnt. Anyway, the focus of the question lies more on why factories do not turn to use share contracts to evade the employer-employee relationship (i.e. the problem of using share contract). If you can point out why other contractual arrangements can evade such relationship at a low transaction costs than the share contracts, definitely it's a reasoned answer.
It's unclear what you mean by restrictive supply --- you are probably referring to a fixed quantity. Actually the licence issuing department would sell less licences when the licences are transferable. Don't worry. Most candidates would do the same.
No comments:
Post a Comment