Question

Suppose the government wants to increase​ farmers' incomes. Why do price supports or​ acreage-limitation programs cost society more than simply giving farmers​ money? A. A price support reduces the quantity demanded by​ consumers, which results in a loss of surplus that is not captured by farmers or consumers. Giving farmers money results in a smaller deadweight loss because it is merely a redistribution of surplus from one group to the other. B. A price support forces an increase in demand by​ consumers, which results in a loss of consumer surplus that is not captured by farmers​ (deadweight loss). Giving farmers money results in a smaller deadweight loss because it is merely a redistribution of surplus from one group to the other. C. A price support forces an increase in demand by​ consumers, which results in a loss of consumer surplus that is not captured by farmers​ (deadweight loss). Giving farmers money​ doesn't result in any deadweight loss but is merely a redistribution of surplus from one group to the other. D. A price support reduces the quantity demanded by​ consumers, which results in a loss of surplus that is not captured by farmers or consumers. Giving farmers money​ doesn't result in any deadweight loss but is merely a redistribution of surplus from one group to the other.

Answer 1

A.

Step-by-step explanation

The price supports or acreage-limitation programs would cost society more than simply giving farmers money because "A price support reduces the quantity demanded by consumers, which results in a loss of surplus that is not captured by farmers or consumers. Giving farmers money results in a smaller deadweight loss because it is merely a redistribution of surplus from one group to the other."

This is based on the fact that usually price supports lead to massive production and smaller consumption because consumers tend to buy less of any good as price increases, thereby turning to overproduction at the support price.