×
Detail Form
We will send your result on your email id and phone no. please fill detail
1.
Most economists in the United States seem captivated by spell of the free market. Consequently, nothing
seems good or normal that does not accord with the requirements of the free market.
A price that is determined by the seller or for that matter, established by anyone other than the aggregate of
consumers seems pernicious, accordingly, it requires a major act of will to think of price fixing (the
determination of prices by the seller) as both "normal" and having a valuable economic function. In fact,
price-fixing is normal in all industrialized societies because the industrial system itself provides, as an
effortless consequence of its own development, the price-fixing that requires, Modern industrial planning
requires and rewards great size. Hence a comparatively small number of large firms will be competing for
the same group of consumers. That each large firm will act with consideration of its own needs and thus
avoid selling its products for more than its competitors charge is commonly recognized by advocates of
free-markets economic theories. But each large firms will also act with full consideration of the needs that it
has in common with the other large firms competing for the same customers. Each large firm will thus
avoid significant price cutting, because price cutting would be prejudicial to the common interest in a stable
demand for products. Most economists do not see price- fixing when it occurs because they expect it to be
brought about by a number of explicit agreements among large firms; it is not.
More over those economists who argue that allowing the free market to operate without interference is the
most efficient method of establishing prices have not considered the economies of non socialist countries
other than the United States. These economies employ intentional price-fixing usually in an overt fashion.
Formal price fixing by cartel and informal price fixing by agreements covering the members of an industry
are common place. Were there something peculiarly efficient about the free market and inefficient about
price fixing, the countries that have avoided the first and used the second would have suffered drastically in
their economic development. There is no indication that they have.
Socialist industry also works within a frame work of controlled prices. In early 1970's, the Soviet Union
began to give firms and industries some of the flexibility in adjusting prices that a more informal evolution
has accorded the capitalist system. Economists in the United States have hailed the change as a return to
the free market. But Soviet firms are no more subject to prices established by free market over which they
exercise little influenced than are capitalist firms.
The primary purpose of the passage is to
seems good or normal that does not accord with the requirements of the free market.
A price that is determined by the seller or for that matter, established by anyone other than the aggregate of
consumers seems pernicious, accordingly, it requires a major act of will to think of price fixing (the
determination of prices by the seller) as both "normal" and having a valuable economic function. In fact,
price-fixing is normal in all industrialized societies because the industrial system itself provides, as an
effortless consequence of its own development, the price-fixing that requires, Modern industrial planning
requires and rewards great size. Hence a comparatively small number of large firms will be competing for
the same group of consumers. That each large firm will act with consideration of its own needs and thus
avoid selling its products for more than its competitors charge is commonly recognized by advocates of
free-markets economic theories. But each large firms will also act with full consideration of the needs that it
has in common with the other large firms competing for the same customers. Each large firm will thus
avoid significant price cutting, because price cutting would be prejudicial to the common interest in a stable
demand for products. Most economists do not see price- fixing when it occurs because they expect it to be
brought about by a number of explicit agreements among large firms; it is not.
More over those economists who argue that allowing the free market to operate without interference is the
most efficient method of establishing prices have not considered the economies of non socialist countries
other than the United States. These economies employ intentional price-fixing usually in an overt fashion.
Formal price fixing by cartel and informal price fixing by agreements covering the members of an industry
are common place. Were there something peculiarly efficient about the free market and inefficient about
price fixing, the countries that have avoided the first and used the second would have suffered drastically in
their economic development. There is no indication that they have.
Socialist industry also works within a frame work of controlled prices. In early 1970's, the Soviet Union
began to give firms and industries some of the flexibility in adjusting prices that a more informal evolution
has accorded the capitalist system. Economists in the United States have hailed the change as a return to
the free market. But Soviet firms are no more subject to prices established by free market over which they
exercise little influenced than are capitalist firms.
The primary purpose of the passage is to
2.
Most economists in the United States seem captivated by spell of the free market. Consequently, nothing
seems good or normal that does not accord with the requirements of the free market.
A price that is determined by the seller or for that matter, established by anyone other than the aggregate of
consumers seems pernicious, accordingly, it requires a major act of will to think of price fixing (the
determination of prices by the seller) as both "normal" and having a valuable economic function. In fact,
price-fixing is normal in all industrialized societies because the industrial system itself provides, as an
effortless consequence of its own development, the price-fixing that requires, Modern industrial planning
requires and rewards great size. Hence a comparatively small number of large firms will be competing for
the same group of consumers. That each large firm will act with consideration of its own needs and thus
avoid selling its products for more than its competitors charge is commonly recognized by advocates of
free-markets economic theories. But each large firms will also act with full consideration of the needs that it
has in common with the other large firms competing for the same customers. Each large firm will thus
avoid significant price cutting, because price cutting would be prejudicial to the common interest in a stable
demand for products. Most economists do not see price- fixing when it occurs because they expect it to be
brought about by a number of explicit agreements among large firms; it is not.
More over those economists who argue that allowing the free market to operate without interference is the
most efficient method of establishing prices have not considered the economies of non socialist countries
other than the United States. These economies employ intentional price-fixing usually in an overt fashion.
Formal price fixing by cartel and informal price fixing by agreements covering the members of an industry
are common place. Were there something peculiarly efficient about the free market and inefficient about
price fixing, the countries that have avoided the first and used the second would have suffered drastically in
their economic development. There is no indication that they have.
Socialist industry also works within a frame work of controlled prices. In early 1970's, the Soviet Union
began to give firms and industries some of the flexibility in adjusting prices that a more informal evolution
has accorded the capitalist system. Economists in the United States have hailed the change as a return to
the free market. But Soviet firms are no more subject to prices established by free market over which they
exercise little influenced than are capitalist firms.
The passage provides information that would answer which of the following questions about price- fixing?
seems good or normal that does not accord with the requirements of the free market.
A price that is determined by the seller or for that matter, established by anyone other than the aggregate of
consumers seems pernicious, accordingly, it requires a major act of will to think of price fixing (the
determination of prices by the seller) as both "normal" and having a valuable economic function. In fact,
price-fixing is normal in all industrialized societies because the industrial system itself provides, as an
effortless consequence of its own development, the price-fixing that requires, Modern industrial planning
requires and rewards great size. Hence a comparatively small number of large firms will be competing for
the same group of consumers. That each large firm will act with consideration of its own needs and thus
avoid selling its products for more than its competitors charge is commonly recognized by advocates of
free-markets economic theories. But each large firms will also act with full consideration of the needs that it
has in common with the other large firms competing for the same customers. Each large firm will thus
avoid significant price cutting, because price cutting would be prejudicial to the common interest in a stable
demand for products. Most economists do not see price- fixing when it occurs because they expect it to be
brought about by a number of explicit agreements among large firms; it is not.
More over those economists who argue that allowing the free market to operate without interference is the
most efficient method of establishing prices have not considered the economies of non socialist countries
other than the United States. These economies employ intentional price-fixing usually in an overt fashion.
Formal price fixing by cartel and informal price fixing by agreements covering the members of an industry
are common place. Were there something peculiarly efficient about the free market and inefficient about
price fixing, the countries that have avoided the first and used the second would have suffered drastically in
their economic development. There is no indication that they have.
Socialist industry also works within a frame work of controlled prices. In early 1970's, the Soviet Union
began to give firms and industries some of the flexibility in adjusting prices that a more informal evolution
has accorded the capitalist system. Economists in the United States have hailed the change as a return to
the free market. But Soviet firms are no more subject to prices established by free market over which they
exercise little influenced than are capitalist firms.
The passage provides information that would answer which of the following questions about price- fixing?
3.
Most economists in the United States seem captivated by spell of the free market. Consequently, nothing
seems good or normal that does not accord with the requirements of the free market.
A price that is determined by the seller or for that matter, established by anyone other than the aggregate of
consumers seems pernicious, accordingly, it requires a major act of will to think of price fixing (the
determination of prices by the seller) as both "normal" and having a valuable economic function. In fact,
price-fixing is normal in all industrialized societies because the industrial system itself provides, as an
effortless consequence of its own development, the price-fixing that requires, Modern industrial planning
requires and rewards great size. Hence a comparatively small number of large firms will be competing for
the same group of consumers. That each large firm will act with consideration of its own needs and thus
avoid selling its products for more than its competitors charge is commonly recognized by advocates of
free-markets economic theories. But each large firms will also act with full consideration of the needs that it
has in common with the other large firms competing for the same customers. Each large firm will thus
avoid significant price cutting, because price cutting would be prejudicial to the common interest in a stable
demand for products. Most economists do not see price- fixing when it occurs because they expect it to be
brought about by a number of explicit agreements among large firms; it is not.
More over those economists who argue that allowing the free market to operate without interference is the
most efficient method of establishing prices have not considered the economies of non socialist countries
other than the United States. These economies employ intentional price-fixing usually in an overt fashion.
Formal price fixing by cartel and informal price fixing by agreements covering the members of an industry
are common place. Were there something peculiarly efficient about the free market and inefficient about
price fixing, the countries that have avoided the first and used the second would have suffered drastically in
their economic development. There is no indication that they have.
Socialist industry also works within a frame work of controlled prices. In early 1970's, the Soviet Union
began to give firms and industries some of the flexibility in adjusting prices that a more informal evolution
has accorded the capitalist system. Economists in the United States have hailed the change as a return to
the free market. But Soviet firms are no more subject to prices established by free market over which they
exercise little influenced than are capitalist firms.
The author's attitude toward "Most economists in the United States" can best be described as
seems good or normal that does not accord with the requirements of the free market.
A price that is determined by the seller or for that matter, established by anyone other than the aggregate of
consumers seems pernicious, accordingly, it requires a major act of will to think of price fixing (the
determination of prices by the seller) as both "normal" and having a valuable economic function. In fact,
price-fixing is normal in all industrialized societies because the industrial system itself provides, as an
effortless consequence of its own development, the price-fixing that requires, Modern industrial planning
requires and rewards great size. Hence a comparatively small number of large firms will be competing for
the same group of consumers. That each large firm will act with consideration of its own needs and thus
avoid selling its products for more than its competitors charge is commonly recognized by advocates of
free-markets economic theories. But each large firms will also act with full consideration of the needs that it
has in common with the other large firms competing for the same customers. Each large firm will thus
avoid significant price cutting, because price cutting would be prejudicial to the common interest in a stable
demand for products. Most economists do not see price- fixing when it occurs because they expect it to be
brought about by a number of explicit agreements among large firms; it is not.
More over those economists who argue that allowing the free market to operate without interference is the
most efficient method of establishing prices have not considered the economies of non socialist countries
other than the United States. These economies employ intentional price-fixing usually in an overt fashion.
Formal price fixing by cartel and informal price fixing by agreements covering the members of an industry
are common place. Were there something peculiarly efficient about the free market and inefficient about
price fixing, the countries that have avoided the first and used the second would have suffered drastically in
their economic development. There is no indication that they have.
Socialist industry also works within a frame work of controlled prices. In early 1970's, the Soviet Union
began to give firms and industries some of the flexibility in adjusting prices that a more informal evolution
has accorded the capitalist system. Economists in the United States have hailed the change as a return to
the free market. But Soviet firms are no more subject to prices established by free market over which they
exercise little influenced than are capitalist firms.
The author's attitude toward "Most economists in the United States" can best be described as
4.
Most economists in the United States seem captivated by spell of the free market. Consequently, nothing
seems good or normal that does not accord with the requirements of the free market.
A price that is determined by the seller or for that matter, established by anyone other than the aggregate of
consumers seems pernicious, accordingly, it requires a major act of will to think of price fixing (the
determination of prices by the seller) as both "normal" and having a valuable economic function. In fact,
price-fixing is normal in all industrialized societies because the industrial system itself provides, as an
effortless consequence of its own development, the price-fixing that requires, Modern industrial planning
requires and rewards great size. Hence a comparatively small number of large firms will be competing for
the same group of consumers. That each large firm will act with consideration of its own needs and thus
avoid selling its products for more than its competitors charge is commonly recognized by advocates of
free-markets economic theories. But each large firms will also act with full consideration of the needs that it
has in common with the other large firms competing for the same customers. Each large firm will thus
avoid significant price cutting, because price cutting would be prejudicial to the common interest in a stable
demand for products. Most economists do not see price- fixing when it occurs because they expect it to be
brought about by a number of explicit agreements among large firms; it is not.
More over those economists who argue that allowing the free market to operate without interference is the
most efficient method of establishing prices have not considered the economies of non socialist countries
other than the United States. These economies employ intentional price-fixing usually in an overt fashion.
Formal price fixing by cartel and informal price fixing by agreements covering the members of an industry
are common place. Were there something peculiarly efficient about the free market and inefficient about
price fixing, the countries that have avoided the first and used the second would have suffered drastically in
their economic development. There is no indication that they have.
Socialist industry also works within a frame work of controlled prices. In early 1970's, the Soviet Union
began to give firms and industries some of the flexibility in adjusting prices that a more informal evolution
has accorded the capitalist system. Economists in the United States have hailed the change as a return to
the free market. But Soviet firms are no more subject to prices established by free market over which they
exercise little influenced than are capitalist firms.
It can be inferred from the author's argument that a price fixed by the seller "seems pernicious" because
seems good or normal that does not accord with the requirements of the free market.
A price that is determined by the seller or for that matter, established by anyone other than the aggregate of
consumers seems pernicious, accordingly, it requires a major act of will to think of price fixing (the
determination of prices by the seller) as both "normal" and having a valuable economic function. In fact,
price-fixing is normal in all industrialized societies because the industrial system itself provides, as an
effortless consequence of its own development, the price-fixing that requires, Modern industrial planning
requires and rewards great size. Hence a comparatively small number of large firms will be competing for
the same group of consumers. That each large firm will act with consideration of its own needs and thus
avoid selling its products for more than its competitors charge is commonly recognized by advocates of
free-markets economic theories. But each large firms will also act with full consideration of the needs that it
has in common with the other large firms competing for the same customers. Each large firm will thus
avoid significant price cutting, because price cutting would be prejudicial to the common interest in a stable
demand for products. Most economists do not see price- fixing when it occurs because they expect it to be
brought about by a number of explicit agreements among large firms; it is not.
More over those economists who argue that allowing the free market to operate without interference is the
most efficient method of establishing prices have not considered the economies of non socialist countries
other than the United States. These economies employ intentional price-fixing usually in an overt fashion.
Formal price fixing by cartel and informal price fixing by agreements covering the members of an industry
are common place. Were there something peculiarly efficient about the free market and inefficient about
price fixing, the countries that have avoided the first and used the second would have suffered drastically in
their economic development. There is no indication that they have.
Socialist industry also works within a frame work of controlled prices. In early 1970's, the Soviet Union
began to give firms and industries some of the flexibility in adjusting prices that a more informal evolution
has accorded the capitalist system. Economists in the United States have hailed the change as a return to
the free market. But Soviet firms are no more subject to prices established by free market over which they
exercise little influenced than are capitalist firms.
It can be inferred from the author's argument that a price fixed by the seller "seems pernicious" because
5.
Most economists in the United States seem captivated by spell of the free market. Consequently, nothing
seems good or normal that does not accord with the requirements of the free market.
A price that is determined by the seller or for that matter, established by anyone other than the aggregate of
consumers seems pernicious, accordingly, it requires a major act of will to think of price fixing (the
determination of prices by the seller) as both "normal" and having a valuable economic function. In fact,
price-fixing is normal in all industrialized societies because the industrial system itself provides, as an
effortless consequence of its own development, the price-fixing that requires, Modern industrial planning
requires and rewards great size. Hence a comparatively small number of large firms will be competing for
the same group of consumers. That each large firm will act with consideration of its own needs and thus
avoid selling its products for more than its competitors charge is commonly recognized by advocates of
free-markets economic theories. But each large firms will also act with full consideration of the needs that it
has in common with the other large firms competing for the same customers. Each large firm will thus
avoid significant price cutting, because price cutting would be prejudicial to the common interest in a stable
demand for products. Most economists do not see price- fixing when it occurs because they expect it to be
brought about by a number of explicit agreements among large firms; it is not.
More over those economists who argue that allowing the free market to operate without interference is the
most efficient method of establishing prices have not considered the economies of non socialist countries
other than the United States. These economies employ intentional price-fixing usually in an overt fashion.
Formal price fixing by cartel and informal price fixing by agreements covering the members of an industry
are common place. Were there something peculiarly efficient about the free market and inefficient about
price fixing, the countries that have avoided the first and used the second would have suffered drastically in
their economic development. There is no indication that they have.
Socialist industry also works within a frame work of controlled prices. In early 1970's, the Soviet Union
began to give firms and industries some of the flexibility in adjusting prices that a more informal evolution
has accorded the capitalist system. Economists in the United States have hailed the change as a return to
the free market. But Soviet firms are no more subject to prices established by free market over which they
exercise little influenced than are capitalist firms.
The suggestion in the passage that price-fixing in industrialized societies is normal arises from the author's
statement that price-fixing is
seems good or normal that does not accord with the requirements of the free market.
A price that is determined by the seller or for that matter, established by anyone other than the aggregate of
consumers seems pernicious, accordingly, it requires a major act of will to think of price fixing (the
determination of prices by the seller) as both "normal" and having a valuable economic function. In fact,
price-fixing is normal in all industrialized societies because the industrial system itself provides, as an
effortless consequence of its own development, the price-fixing that requires, Modern industrial planning
requires and rewards great size. Hence a comparatively small number of large firms will be competing for
the same group of consumers. That each large firm will act with consideration of its own needs and thus
avoid selling its products for more than its competitors charge is commonly recognized by advocates of
free-markets economic theories. But each large firms will also act with full consideration of the needs that it
has in common with the other large firms competing for the same customers. Each large firm will thus
avoid significant price cutting, because price cutting would be prejudicial to the common interest in a stable
demand for products. Most economists do not see price- fixing when it occurs because they expect it to be
brought about by a number of explicit agreements among large firms; it is not.
More over those economists who argue that allowing the free market to operate without interference is the
most efficient method of establishing prices have not considered the economies of non socialist countries
other than the United States. These economies employ intentional price-fixing usually in an overt fashion.
Formal price fixing by cartel and informal price fixing by agreements covering the members of an industry
are common place. Were there something peculiarly efficient about the free market and inefficient about
price fixing, the countries that have avoided the first and used the second would have suffered drastically in
their economic development. There is no indication that they have.
Socialist industry also works within a frame work of controlled prices. In early 1970's, the Soviet Union
began to give firms and industries some of the flexibility in adjusting prices that a more informal evolution
has accorded the capitalist system. Economists in the United States have hailed the change as a return to
the free market. But Soviet firms are no more subject to prices established by free market over which they
exercise little influenced than are capitalist firms.
The suggestion in the passage that price-fixing in industrialized societies is normal arises from the author's
statement that price-fixing is
6.
Most economists in the United States seem captivated by spell of the free market. Consequently, nothing
seems good or normal that does not accord with the requirements of the free market.
A price that is determined by the seller or for that matter, established by anyone other than the aggregate of
consumers seems pernicious, accordingly, it requires a major act of will to think of price fixing (the
determination of prices by the seller) as both "normal" and having a valuable economic function. In fact,
price-fixing is normal in all industrialized societies because the industrial system itself provides, as an
effortless consequence of its own development, the price-fixing that requires, Modern industrial planning
requires and rewards great size. Hence a comparatively small number of large firms will be competing for
the same group of consumers. That each large firm will act with consideration of its own needs and thus
avoid selling its products for more than its competitors charge is commonly recognized by advocates of
free-markets economic theories. But each large firms will also act with full consideration of the needs that it
has in common with the other large firms competing for the same customers. Each large firm will thus
avoid significant price cutting, because price cutting would be prejudicial to the common interest in a stable
demand for products. Most economists do not see price- fixing when it occurs because they expect it to be
brought about by a number of explicit agreements among large firms; it is not.
More over those economists who argue that allowing the free market to operate without interference is the
most efficient method of establishing prices have not considered the economies of non socialist countries
other than the United States. These economies employ intentional price-fixing usually in an overt fashion.
Formal price fixing by cartel and informal price fixing by agreements covering the members of an industry
are common place. Were there something peculiarly efficient about the free market and inefficient about
price fixing, the countries that have avoided the first and used the second would have suffered drastically in
their economic development. There is no indication that they have.
Socialist industry also works within a frame work of controlled prices. In early 1970's, the Soviet Union
began to give firms and industries some of the flexibility in adjusting prices that a more informal evolution
has accorded the capitalist system. Economists in the United States have hailed the change as a return to
the free market. But Soviet firms are no more subject to prices established by free market over which they
exercise little influenced than are capitalist firms.
According to the author, priced-fixing in nonsocialist countries is often.
seems good or normal that does not accord with the requirements of the free market.
A price that is determined by the seller or for that matter, established by anyone other than the aggregate of
consumers seems pernicious, accordingly, it requires a major act of will to think of price fixing (the
determination of prices by the seller) as both "normal" and having a valuable economic function. In fact,
price-fixing is normal in all industrialized societies because the industrial system itself provides, as an
effortless consequence of its own development, the price-fixing that requires, Modern industrial planning
requires and rewards great size. Hence a comparatively small number of large firms will be competing for
the same group of consumers. That each large firm will act with consideration of its own needs and thus
avoid selling its products for more than its competitors charge is commonly recognized by advocates of
free-markets economic theories. But each large firms will also act with full consideration of the needs that it
has in common with the other large firms competing for the same customers. Each large firm will thus
avoid significant price cutting, because price cutting would be prejudicial to the common interest in a stable
demand for products. Most economists do not see price- fixing when it occurs because they expect it to be
brought about by a number of explicit agreements among large firms; it is not.
More over those economists who argue that allowing the free market to operate without interference is the
most efficient method of establishing prices have not considered the economies of non socialist countries
other than the United States. These economies employ intentional price-fixing usually in an overt fashion.
Formal price fixing by cartel and informal price fixing by agreements covering the members of an industry
are common place. Were there something peculiarly efficient about the free market and inefficient about
price fixing, the countries that have avoided the first and used the second would have suffered drastically in
their economic development. There is no indication that they have.
Socialist industry also works within a frame work of controlled prices. In early 1970's, the Soviet Union
began to give firms and industries some of the flexibility in adjusting prices that a more informal evolution
has accorded the capitalist system. Economists in the United States have hailed the change as a return to
the free market. But Soviet firms are no more subject to prices established by free market over which they
exercise little influenced than are capitalist firms.
According to the author, priced-fixing in nonsocialist countries is often.
7.
Most economists in the United States seem captivated by spell of the free market. Consequently, nothing
seems good or normal that does not accord with the requirements of the free market.
A price that is determined by the seller or for that matter, established by anyone other than the aggregate of
consumers seems pernicious, accordingly, it requires a major act of will to think of price fixing (the
determination of prices by the seller) as both "normal" and having a valuable economic function. In fact,
price-fixing is normal in all industrialized societies because the industrial system itself provides, as an
effortless consequence of its own development, the price-fixing that requires, Modern industrial planning
requires and rewards great size. Hence a comparatively small number of large firms will be competing for
the same group of consumers. That each large firm will act with consideration of its own needs and thus
avoid selling its products for more than its competitors charge is commonly recognized by advocates of
free-markets economic theories. But each large firms will also act with full consideration of the needs that it
has in common with the other large firms competing for the same customers. Each large firm will thus
avoid significant price cutting, because price cutting would be prejudicial to the common interest in a stable
demand for products. Most economists do not see price- fixing when it occurs because they expect it to be
brought about by a number of explicit agreements among large firms; it is not.
More over those economists who argue that allowing the free market to operate without interference is the
most efficient method of establishing prices have not considered the economies of non socialist countries
other than the United States. These economies employ intentional price-fixing usually in an overt fashion.
Formal price fixing by cartel and informal price fixing by agreements covering the members of an industry
are common place. Were there something peculiarly efficient about the free market and inefficient about
price fixing, the countries that have avoided the first and used the second would have suffered drastically in
their economic development. There is no indication that they have.
Socialist industry also works within a frame work of controlled prices. In early 1970's, the Soviet Union
began to give firms and industries some of the flexibility in adjusting prices that a more informal evolution
has accorded the capitalist system. Economists in the United States have hailed the change as a return to
the free market. But Soviet firms are no more subject to prices established by free market over which they
exercise little influenced than are capitalist firms.
According to the author, what is the result of the Soviet Union's change in economic policy in the 1970's?
seems good or normal that does not accord with the requirements of the free market.
A price that is determined by the seller or for that matter, established by anyone other than the aggregate of
consumers seems pernicious, accordingly, it requires a major act of will to think of price fixing (the
determination of prices by the seller) as both "normal" and having a valuable economic function. In fact,
price-fixing is normal in all industrialized societies because the industrial system itself provides, as an
effortless consequence of its own development, the price-fixing that requires, Modern industrial planning
requires and rewards great size. Hence a comparatively small number of large firms will be competing for
the same group of consumers. That each large firm will act with consideration of its own needs and thus
avoid selling its products for more than its competitors charge is commonly recognized by advocates of
free-markets economic theories. But each large firms will also act with full consideration of the needs that it
has in common with the other large firms competing for the same customers. Each large firm will thus
avoid significant price cutting, because price cutting would be prejudicial to the common interest in a stable
demand for products. Most economists do not see price- fixing when it occurs because they expect it to be
brought about by a number of explicit agreements among large firms; it is not.
More over those economists who argue that allowing the free market to operate without interference is the
most efficient method of establishing prices have not considered the economies of non socialist countries
other than the United States. These economies employ intentional price-fixing usually in an overt fashion.
Formal price fixing by cartel and informal price fixing by agreements covering the members of an industry
are common place. Were there something peculiarly efficient about the free market and inefficient about
price fixing, the countries that have avoided the first and used the second would have suffered drastically in
their economic development. There is no indication that they have.
Socialist industry also works within a frame work of controlled prices. In early 1970's, the Soviet Union
began to give firms and industries some of the flexibility in adjusting prices that a more informal evolution
has accorded the capitalist system. Economists in the United States have hailed the change as a return to
the free market. But Soviet firms are no more subject to prices established by free market over which they
exercise little influenced than are capitalist firms.
According to the author, what is the result of the Soviet Union's change in economic policy in the 1970's?
8.
Most economists in the United States seem captivated by spell of the free market. Consequently, nothing
seems good or normal that does not accord with the requirements of the free market.
A price that is determined by the seller or for that matter, established by anyone other than the aggregate of
consumers seems pernicious, accordingly, it requires a major act of will to think of price fixing (the
determination of prices by the seller) as both "normal" and having a valuable economic function. In fact,
price-fixing is normal in all industrialized societies because the industrial system itself provides, as an
effortless consequence of its own development, the price-fixing that requires, Modern industrial planning
requires and rewards great size. Hence a comparatively small number of large firms will be competing for
the same group of consumers. That each large firm will act with consideration of its own needs and thus
avoid selling its products for more than its competitors charge is commonly recognized by advocates of
free-markets economic theories. But each large firms will also act with full consideration of the needs that it
has in common with the other large firms competing for the same customers. Each large firm will thus
avoid significant price cutting, because price cutting would be prejudicial to the common interest in a stable
demand for products. Most economists do not see price- fixing when it occurs because they expect it to be
brought about by a number of explicit agreements among large firms; it is not.
More over those economists who argue that allowing the free market to operate without interference is the
most efficient method of establishing prices have not considered the economies of non socialist countries
other than the United States. These economies employ intentional price-fixing usually in an overt fashion.
Formal price fixing by cartel and informal price fixing by agreements covering the members of an industry
are common place. Were there something peculiarly efficient about the free market and inefficient about
price fixing, the countries that have avoided the first and used the second would have suffered drastically in
their economic development. There is no indication that they have.
Socialist industry also works within a frame work of controlled prices. In early 1970's, the Soviet Union
began to give firms and industries some of the flexibility in adjusting prices that a more informal evolution
has accorded the capitalist system. Economists in the United States have hailed the change as a return to
the free market. But Soviet firms are no more subject to prices established by free market over which they
exercise little influenced than are capitalist firms. With which of the following statements regarding the
behavior of large firms in industrialized societies would the author be most likely to agree.
seems good or normal that does not accord with the requirements of the free market.
A price that is determined by the seller or for that matter, established by anyone other than the aggregate of
consumers seems pernicious, accordingly, it requires a major act of will to think of price fixing (the
determination of prices by the seller) as both "normal" and having a valuable economic function. In fact,
price-fixing is normal in all industrialized societies because the industrial system itself provides, as an
effortless consequence of its own development, the price-fixing that requires, Modern industrial planning
requires and rewards great size. Hence a comparatively small number of large firms will be competing for
the same group of consumers. That each large firm will act with consideration of its own needs and thus
avoid selling its products for more than its competitors charge is commonly recognized by advocates of
free-markets economic theories. But each large firms will also act with full consideration of the needs that it
has in common with the other large firms competing for the same customers. Each large firm will thus
avoid significant price cutting, because price cutting would be prejudicial to the common interest in a stable
demand for products. Most economists do not see price- fixing when it occurs because they expect it to be
brought about by a number of explicit agreements among large firms; it is not.
More over those economists who argue that allowing the free market to operate without interference is the
most efficient method of establishing prices have not considered the economies of non socialist countries
other than the United States. These economies employ intentional price-fixing usually in an overt fashion.
Formal price fixing by cartel and informal price fixing by agreements covering the members of an industry
are common place. Were there something peculiarly efficient about the free market and inefficient about
price fixing, the countries that have avoided the first and used the second would have suffered drastically in
their economic development. There is no indication that they have.
Socialist industry also works within a frame work of controlled prices. In early 1970's, the Soviet Union
began to give firms and industries some of the flexibility in adjusting prices that a more informal evolution
has accorded the capitalist system. Economists in the United States have hailed the change as a return to
the free market. But Soviet firms are no more subject to prices established by free market over which they
exercise little influenced than are capitalist firms. With which of the following statements regarding the
behavior of large firms in industrialized societies would the author be most likely to agree.
9.
Most economists in the United States seem captivated by spell of the free market. Consequently, nothing
seems good or normal that does not accord with the requirements of the free market.
A price that is determined by the seller or for that matter, established by anyone other than the aggregate of
consumers seems pernicious, accordingly, it requires a major act of will to think of price fixing (the
determination of prices by the seller) as both "normal" and having a valuable economic function. In fact,
price-fixing is normal in all industrialized societies because the industrial system itself provides, as an
effortless consequence of its own development, the price-fixing that requires, Modern industrial planning
requires and rewards great size. Hence a comparatively small number of large firms will be competing for
the same group of consumers. That each large firm will act with consideration of its own needs and thus
avoid selling its products for more than its competitors charge is commonly recognized by advocates of
free-markets economic theories. But each large firms will also act with full consideration of the needs that it
has in common with the other large firms competing for the same customers. Each large firm will thus
avoid significant price cutting, because price cutting would be prejudicial to the common interest in a stable
demand for products. Most economists do not see price- fixing when it occurs because they expect it to be
brought about by a number of explicit agreements among large firms; it is not.
More over those economists who argue that allowing the free market to operate without interference is the
most efficient method of establishing prices have not considered the economies of non socialist countries
other than the United States. These economies employ intentional price-fixing usually in an overt fashion.
Formal price fixing by cartel and informal price fixing by agreements covering the members of an industry
are common place. Were there something peculiarly efficient about the free market and inefficient about
price fixing, the countries that have avoided the first and used the second would have suffered drastically in
their economic development. There is no indication that they have.
Socialist industry also works within a frame work of controlled prices. In early 1970's, the Soviet Union
began to give firms and industries some of the flexibility in adjusting prices that a more informal evolution
has accorded the capitalist system. Economists in the United States have hailed the change as a return to
the free market. But Soviet firms are no more subject to prices established by free market over which they
exercise little influenced than are capitalist firms.
In the passage, the author is primarily concerned with
seems good or normal that does not accord with the requirements of the free market.
A price that is determined by the seller or for that matter, established by anyone other than the aggregate of
consumers seems pernicious, accordingly, it requires a major act of will to think of price fixing (the
determination of prices by the seller) as both "normal" and having a valuable economic function. In fact,
price-fixing is normal in all industrialized societies because the industrial system itself provides, as an
effortless consequence of its own development, the price-fixing that requires, Modern industrial planning
requires and rewards great size. Hence a comparatively small number of large firms will be competing for
the same group of consumers. That each large firm will act with consideration of its own needs and thus
avoid selling its products for more than its competitors charge is commonly recognized by advocates of
free-markets economic theories. But each large firms will also act with full consideration of the needs that it
has in common with the other large firms competing for the same customers. Each large firm will thus
avoid significant price cutting, because price cutting would be prejudicial to the common interest in a stable
demand for products. Most economists do not see price- fixing when it occurs because they expect it to be
brought about by a number of explicit agreements among large firms; it is not.
More over those economists who argue that allowing the free market to operate without interference is the
most efficient method of establishing prices have not considered the economies of non socialist countries
other than the United States. These economies employ intentional price-fixing usually in an overt fashion.
Formal price fixing by cartel and informal price fixing by agreements covering the members of an industry
are common place. Were there something peculiarly efficient about the free market and inefficient about
price fixing, the countries that have avoided the first and used the second would have suffered drastically in
their economic development. There is no indication that they have.
Socialist industry also works within a frame work of controlled prices. In early 1970's, the Soviet Union
began to give firms and industries some of the flexibility in adjusting prices that a more informal evolution
has accorded the capitalist system. Economists in the United States have hailed the change as a return to
the free market. But Soviet firms are no more subject to prices established by free market over which they
exercise little influenced than are capitalist firms.
In the passage, the author is primarily concerned with
10.
The discoveries of the white dwarf, the neutron star, and the black hole, coming well after the discovery of
the red giant are among eh most exciting developments in decades because they may be well present
physicists with their greatest challenge since the failure of classical mechanics. In the life cycle of the star,
after all of the hydrogen and helium fuel has been burned, the delicate balance between the outer nuclear
radiation. Pressure and the stable gravitational force becomes disturbed and slow contraction begins. As
compression increases, a very dense plasma forms. If the initial star had mass of less than 1.4 solar
masses (1.4 times the mass of our sun), the process ceases at the density of 1,000 tons per cubic inch,
and the star becomes the white dwarf. However, if the star was originally more massive, the white dwarf
plasma can't resist the gravitations pressures, and in rapid collapse, all nuclei of the star are converted to a
gas of free neutrons. Gravitational attraction compresses this neutron gas rapidly until a density of 10 tons
per cubic inch is reached; at this point the strong nuclear force resists further contraction. If the mass of the
star was between 1.4 and a few solar masses, the process stops here, and we have a neutron star. But if
the original star was more massive than a few solar masses, even the strong nuclear forces cannot resist
the gravitational brunch. The neutrons are forced into one another to form heavier hadrons and these in
turn coalesce to form heavier entities, of which we as yet know nothing. At this point, a complete collapse
of the stellar mass occurs; existing theories predict a collapse to infinite density and infinitely small
dimensions Well before this, however, the surface gravitational force would become so strong that no
signal could ever leave the star - any photon emitted would fall back under gravitational attraction and the
star would become black hole in space. This gravitational collapse poses a fundamental challenge to
physics. When the most widely accepted theories predict such improbable things as infinite density and
infinitely small dimensions, it simply means that we are missing some vital insight. This last happened in
physics in the 1930's, when we faced the fundamental paradox concerning atomic structure. At that time, it
was recognized that electrons moved in table orbits about nuclei in atoms. However, it was also recognized
that if charge is accelerated, as it must be to remain in orbit, it radiates energy; so, theoretically, the
electron would be expected eventually to spiral into the nucleus and destroy the atom. Studies centered
around this paradox led to the development of quantum mechanics. It may well be that an equivalent t
advance awaits us in investigating the theoretical problems presented by the phenomenon of gravitational
collapse.
The primary purpose of the passage is to
the red giant are among eh most exciting developments in decades because they may be well present
physicists with their greatest challenge since the failure of classical mechanics. In the life cycle of the star,
after all of the hydrogen and helium fuel has been burned, the delicate balance between the outer nuclear
radiation. Pressure and the stable gravitational force becomes disturbed and slow contraction begins. As
compression increases, a very dense plasma forms. If the initial star had mass of less than 1.4 solar
masses (1.4 times the mass of our sun), the process ceases at the density of 1,000 tons per cubic inch,
and the star becomes the white dwarf. However, if the star was originally more massive, the white dwarf
plasma can't resist the gravitations pressures, and in rapid collapse, all nuclei of the star are converted to a
gas of free neutrons. Gravitational attraction compresses this neutron gas rapidly until a density of 10 tons
per cubic inch is reached; at this point the strong nuclear force resists further contraction. If the mass of the
star was between 1.4 and a few solar masses, the process stops here, and we have a neutron star. But if
the original star was more massive than a few solar masses, even the strong nuclear forces cannot resist
the gravitational brunch. The neutrons are forced into one another to form heavier hadrons and these in
turn coalesce to form heavier entities, of which we as yet know nothing. At this point, a complete collapse
of the stellar mass occurs; existing theories predict a collapse to infinite density and infinitely small
dimensions Well before this, however, the surface gravitational force would become so strong that no
signal could ever leave the star - any photon emitted would fall back under gravitational attraction and the
star would become black hole in space. This gravitational collapse poses a fundamental challenge to
physics. When the most widely accepted theories predict such improbable things as infinite density and
infinitely small dimensions, it simply means that we are missing some vital insight. This last happened in
physics in the 1930's, when we faced the fundamental paradox concerning atomic structure. At that time, it
was recognized that electrons moved in table orbits about nuclei in atoms. However, it was also recognized
that if charge is accelerated, as it must be to remain in orbit, it radiates energy; so, theoretically, the
electron would be expected eventually to spiral into the nucleus and destroy the atom. Studies centered
around this paradox led to the development of quantum mechanics. It may well be that an equivalent t
advance awaits us in investigating the theoretical problems presented by the phenomenon of gravitational
collapse.
The primary purpose of the passage is to