A Californian student consumes Internet services (I) and books (B). Her preferences are represented by a Cobb-Douglas utility function of the type: U(I, B) = I .5B.5. Initially Y = 100, PI = PB = 1. Lately, however, because of the electricity shortage, the price of the Internet services has increased to 2. The government has decided to give a transfer to the student so that she can recover her initial welfare. In order to determine the transfer the government has hired three consultants who have made the following suggestions:

Consultant A: The transfer should allow the student to buy her initial bundle.
Consultant B: The transfer should allow the student to get her initial level of utility.
Consultant C: The government should give her a transfer of 20.

a. Using the expenditure function, find the amount of the transfer implied by consultant A.
b. Find the amount of the transfer implied by consultant B.
c. Determine whether the consumer is better or worse off from Consultant Cʹs suggestion than before the price increases.

Acompany is developing a new high­performance wax for cross country ski racing. in order to justify the price marketingwants, the wax needs to be very fast. specifically, the mean time to finish their standard test course should be less thanseconds for a former olympic champion. to test it, the champion will ski the course 8 times. the champion's times(selected at random) are 59.9 61.9 48.8 52.2 46.6 45.3 50.6 and 41.1 seconds to complete the test course. complete parts a and b below.a) should they market the wax? assume the assumptions and conditions for appropriate hypothesis testing are metfor the sample.assume=0.05. what are the null and alternative hypotheses? choose the correct answer below.b) suppose they decide not to market the wax after the test, but it turns out that the wax really does lower the champion'saverage time to less thanseconds. what kind of error have they made? explain the impact to the company of such anerror.

In december of 2004, the company you own entered into a 20-year contract with a grain supplier for daily deliveries of grain to its hot dog bun manufacturing facility. the contract called for "10,000 pounds of grain" to be delivered to the facility at the price of $100,000 per day. until february 2017, the supplier provided processed grain which could easily be used in your manufacturing process. however, no longer wanting to absorb the cost of having the grain processed, the supplier began delivering whole grain. the supplier is arguing that the contract does not specify the type of grain that would be supplied and that it has not breached the contract. your company is arguing that the supplier has an onsite processing plant and processed grain was implicit to the terms of the contract. over the remaining term of the contract, reshipping and having the grain processed would cost your company approximately $10,000,000, opposed to a cost of around $1,000,000 to the supplier. after speaking with in-house counsel, it was estimated that litigation would cost the company several million dollars and last for years. weighing the costs of litigation, along with possible ambiguity in the contract, what are three options you could take to resolve the dispute? which would be the best option for your business and why?

You own 2,200 shares of deltona hardware. the company has stated that it plans on issuing a dividend of $0.42 a share at the end of this year and then issuing a final liquidating dividend of $2.90 a share at the end of next year. your required rate of return on this security is 16 percent. ignoring taxes, what is the value of one share of this stock to you today?