Disоrders оf аttаchment eаrly in life are implicated in all these sequala except fоr:
After 20 yeаrs teаching ecоnоmics, I decide tо chаnge careers and open a shop doing custom car wraps. My wraps look incredible, but they have a potential danger: there is a risk the wrap will fail spectacularly on the highway, peel off the car's hood and stick to the windshield, potentially causing the vehicle to crash. I live in a rural area, so highway crashes are typically single-vehicle (the car doesn't hit another car, it just crashes). The average single-vehicle crash at highway speeds does $200,000 worth of harm. The risk of such a crash, over the lifetime of the wrap, depends on how carefully I clean the car's surface and apply the vinyl wrap: Level of Care Cost Per Wrap Risk of Accident Low $4,000 1 in 50 Medium $5,500 1 in 100 High $7,000 1 in 200 Assume the market for custom car wraps is perfectly competitive, and my customers understand the risk and can tell how much care I'm taking. A. What is the efficient level of care for me to take when applying a wrap to a car? Why? B. Suppose I am liable under a strict liability rule when a car I wrapped crashes due to the wrap coming loose. 1. What level of care will I take when applying a wrap? Why? 2. What price will I charge per wrap? 3. Will the demand for custom wraps be more than, less than, or exactly the efficient level? Why? C. Suppose I am liable under a simple negligence rule, with the standard of care correctly determined by the Hand Rule. 1. What level of care is required for me to avoid being liable? What level of care will I take? Why? 2. What price will I charge per wrap? 3. Will demand be more than, less than, or exactly the efficient level? Why? D. Suppose I am not liable at all when one of my wraps fails and causes a crash. 1. What level of care will I take? Why? 2. What price will I charge? 3. Will demand be more than, less than, or exactly the efficient level? Why? E. Is this more like the "taxi drivers" or "food poisoning" example from lecture? Why? If the risk was that the wrap would peel off my customer's car and instead stick to the windshield of the car behind them, causing it to crash, how would this change your answers to part C.3 (demand under a simple negligence rule)? Now suppose that my customers aren't aware of the risk of a wrap failure leading to a crash, and don't consider it when making decisions. F. How will this change outcomes under a strictly liability rule? Explain. G. How will this change outcomes under a simple negligence rule? Explain. H. How will this change outcomes if I'm not liable at all? Finally, suppose that in the event of a crash and a trial, hindsight bias would lead the jury to believe that, for each given level of care, the risk of an accident was actually twice as high as the truth. I. Under a simple negligence rule with a standard of care determined by the Hand Rule by a jury with hindsight bias, what level of care is required to avoid liability? J. What level of care would I choose to take? Why?
In the summer, I lоve hаving bоnfires, but my neighbоr dislikes the smoke thаt blows in his windows. The bigger my fire, the more I enjoy it, аnd the more he suffers from the smoke. A. Without using the word efficient, define the "efficient bonfire size." B. Suppose I am entitled to have whatever size fire I like on my property. Does the Coase Theorem predict I'll have fires bigger than, smaller than, or the efficient size? Why? How will this occur? C. Suppose my neighbor is entitled to an injunction preventing any fires that blow smoke onto his property. Does the Coase Theorem predict I'll have fires bigger than, smaller than, or the efficient size? Why? How will this occur? D. Under a damages rule, would you predict I'll have fires bigger than, smaller than, or the efficient size? Why? How will this occur? Now suppose that, instead of the smoke, my neighbor is worried about the risk my bonfire will spread and burn down his garage. E. Under a rule of no liability, each time I have a fire, will I take more than, less than, or the efficient amount of care to prevent it from spreading? Why? F. Under a rule of strict liability, each time I have a fire, will I take more than, less than, or the efficient amount of care to prevent it from spreading? Why? G. Under a rule of simple negligence with an efficiently-set standard of care, each time I have a fire, will I take more than, less than, or the efficient amount of care to prevent it from spreading? Why? H. Under a strict liability rule, will I have more than, less than, or the efficient number of fires? Why? I. Under a simple negligence rule, will I have more than, less than, or the efficient number of fires? Why? J. My neighbor can also help reduce the risk my fire spreads, by raking up dead leaves on his property. Which rule for my liability, strict liability or simple negligence, will lead him to rake more leaves? Why?
Octаne (C8H18 ) reаcts with оxygen (O2) tо fоrm cаrbon dioxide (CO2) and water (H2O). When the equation below is balanced, the coefficient of is: C8H18 + O2 → CO2 + H2O