代寫essay：乳製品的使用
現在根據案例研究，乳製品的使用可以被視爲負外部性。負外部性是指日記公司做出的決策可能沒有完全解決或由決策制定者支付的基於決策的影響。因此，當一種商品被製造出來具有負外部性時，那麼它給社會帶來的成本可能大於消費者爲此付出的成本。無論是製造商還是終端消費者都無法控制這些費用。邊際成本和邊際效益被考慮在內，但沒有考慮負外部性的成本，從長期來看，這些會導致市場效率低下。這種情況下的負外部性是生產乳製品，比如牛奶，因爲奶牛養殖被認爲會增加鮑比小牛的死亡率。此外，它也有更高的碳足跡。對乳製品徵收某種形式的稅收(類似於各國徵收的碳稅)可能會有用。使用乳製品稅的主要好處是，如果不解決這些問題，它有助於解決無謂的福利損失。
代寫essay：乳製品的使用
在一個不受監管的市場，或者像澳大利亞日記市場這樣監管最少的市場，生產者不承擔外部成本，而是轉嫁給社會。由於邊際成本降低，供給曲線向社會下移，需求也隨之上升。因此會帶來過多的產品，當邊際效益等於邊際成本時，就出現了無謂的福利成本。下圖中的紅線是負外部性的結果。黑線是邊際成本曲線。最優生產是Q’，但負外部性導致Q*的生產。DWL爲無謂福利損失(負外部性，2016)。現在乳製品稅的引入,爲牛奶產量有可能留在一個高效區和太多的產品將不會購買或生產因爲生產者和消費者不得不支付額外的銷售他們的產品或產品的購買。“解決負外部性問題的方法就是簡單地向生產者徵收負外部性的金額。這增加了生產者的邊際成本，並將導致他們減少產量”(負外部性，2016)。
意識被創造出來，公司和消費者將轉向更健康的替代品。在福利方面，由於需求下降，也就不需要宰殺鮑比小牛了。使用稅收優惠的一個直接壞處是，創造均衡局面需要一段時間，根據當前需求進行投資的公司，以及爲此目的準備好了牲畜的公司，可能會面臨一定的損失。這種情況也可能影響乳製品部門人員的就業機會。
代寫essay：乳製品的使用
Now according to the case study, the use of dairy products can be viewed as a negative externality. A negative externality is a situation when the diary company makes decisions where the decision based impact might not be fully addressed or paid for by the maker of the decision. So when a good being manufactured has a negative externality, then the cost to society might be greater than what the consumer pays for it. And neither the industry that manufactures nor the end point consumers take control of these charges. Marginal cost and the marginal benefit are taken into account, but not the cost of the negative externality and these results in market inefficiencies over the long run. Now the negative externality in this situation is that of producing the dairy products such as milk, because dairy farming is seen to result in an increased death of bobby calves. Furthermore, it has a higher carbon footprint, too. Using some forms of taxation on dairy products (similar to carbon taxes used in countries) could be useful. The major pro of using a dairy tax is that it helps address the deadweight welfare loss which occurs if the issues are not addressed.
代寫essay：乳製品的使用
In an unregulated market or market with minimum regulation such as that of the Australian Diary market, the producers would not take responsibility for external costs, and they get passed to society. As the supply curve is shifted down to face society because of the lower marginal costs, the demands also rise. Too much product would hence be brought and with the marginal benefit being equal to that of the marginal cost, the deadweight welfare cost comes into the picture. The red line is in the below graph results from negative externalities. Black line is the marginal cost curve. Optimal production is Q’, but the negative externality results in production of Q*. DWL is the deadweight welfare loss (Negative Externality, 2016). Now with the introduction of the dairy tax, it would be possible for the milk production to stay in an efficient zone and too much of product would not be bought or produced because both producers and consumers have to pay extra for their product to be sold or for the product to be bought. “Way to solve the negative externality problem is to simply tax the producer the amount of the negative externality. This adds to the producer’s marginal cost and will cause them to reduce output” (Negative Externality, 2016).
Awareness is created and companies and consumers would turn towards healthier alternatives as a substitute. In terms of welfare concerns, since the demand goes down, the slaughtering of bobby calves would not be required, too. An immediate con of using the tax initiative is that it would take some time for the equilibrium situation to be created and companies that have invested based on current demand and have cattle ready for the purpose might face some amount of losses. This situation could also affect employment opportunities for people in the dairy sector.
