"Broke", from The Office .
Watch the video clip from "Broke", from The Office .
What was Ryan referring to when he said, "Over time with enough volume, we become profitable." What short-run costs was he focused on, and what was he ignoring?
Given what you have learned so far about economies and diseconomies of scale, discuss the ramifications involved as a firm grows bigger. Use examples from beyond your readings to describe firms experiencing either economies or diseconomies of scale and what this implies for competition and for the customers of these firms.
Discussion 2
Watch the video clip from "Fastest Auction in Europe? Daily Flower Auction in Netherlands". Then research the Aalsmeer flower auctions in more detail.
What aspects of perfect competition do you see present in the Aalsmeer flower auctions? Since there is no truly perfectly competitive market in the world, but rather markets that approach this extreme, are there any elements of the Aalsmeer flower auction that you think do not fit the model of perfect competition?
Describe another industry that you find fits the model of perfect competition.
Discussion 3
Watch the video clip from Forrest Gump.
Consider that Forrest's good luck of "being in the right place at the right time" allowed him to operate as a monopoly. Typically, the fishing industry is a highly competitive industry where economic profits are rarely made in the long run. However, in a twist of fate, Forrest's boat is the lone survivor after a hurricane washes ashore and destroys all the other shrimp boats.
Consider the barriers to entry facing potential competitors in Forrest's monopoly market. The more contestable a market, the closer it will be to a perfectly competitive market, whereas the less contestable a market, the closer it will be to a monopoly.
Describe a firm that you believe is a monopolist. Describe the barriers to entry that exist and discuss if they are contestable or not.
Sample Solution
ombatants must be identified as combatants, to avoid the presence of guerrilla warfare which can end up in a higher death count, for example, the Vietnam War. Moreover, he argued they must be part of the army, bear arms and apply to the rules of jus in bello. (Frowe (2011), Page 101-3). This suggests Frowe seeks a fair, just war between two participants avoiding non-combatant deaths, but wouldn’t this lead to higher death rate for combatants, as both sides have relatively equal chance to win since both use similar tactics? Nevertheless, arguably Frowe will argue that combatant can lawfully kill each other, showing this is just, which is also supported by Vittola, who states: ‘it is lawful to draw the sword and use it against malefactors (Begby et al (2006b), Page 309).’
In addition, Vittola expresses the extent of military tactics used, but never reaches a conclusion whether it’s lawful or not to proceed these actions, as he constantly found a middle ground, where it can be lawful to do such things but never always (Begby et al (2006b), Page 326-31). This is supported by Frowe, who measures the legitimate tactics according to proportionality and military necessity. It depends on the magnitude of how much damage done to one another, in order to judge the actions after a war. For example, one cannot simply nuke the terrorist groups throughout the middle-east, because it is not only proportional, it will damage the whole population, an unintended consequence. More importantly, the soldiers must have the right intention in what they are going to achieve, sacrificing the costs to their actions. For example: if soldiers want to execute all prisoners of war, they must do it for the right intention and for a just cause, proportional to the harm done to them. This is supported by Vittola: ‘not always lawful to execute all combatants…we must take account… scale of the injury inflicted by the enemy.’ This is further supported by Frowe approach, which is a lot more moral than Vittola’s view but implies the same agendas: ‘can’t be punished simply for fighting.’ This means one cannot simply punish another because they have been a combatant. They must be treated as humanely as possible. However, the situation is escalated if killing them can lead to peace and security, within the interests of all parties.
Overall, jus in bello suggests in wars, harm can only be used against combatants, never against the innocent. But in the end, the aim is to establish peace and security within the commonwealth. As Vittola’s conclusion: ‘the pursuit of justice for which he fights and the defence of his homeland’ is what nations should be fighting for in wars (Begby et al (2006b), Page 332). Thus, although today’s world has developed, we can see not much different from the modernist accounts on warfare and the traditionists, giving another section of the theory of the just war. Nevertheless, we can still conclude that there cann