It has been argued that any government policy aimed at nonrenewable resource conservation is an unwarranted interference with the free market. According to this point of view, if a resource is likely to become scarce, the people most likely to realize this are the private investors and traders who deal in the resource. If they anticipate scarcity, they will hold stocks of the resource for future profit, driving up its price and leading to conservation. Any action by government bureaucrats is likely to be less well informed than those of profit-motivated private firms. Evaluate this argument. Do you think that there are cases in which government should step in to conserve specific resources? If so, which policy tools should they use?

In march 2012, the state of california started requiring that all packaging for food and drink with the additive 4-methylimidazole (4-mi) be clearly labeled with a cancer warning. because of this, both pepsi and coke changed their formula to eliminate 4-mi as an ingredient. if pepsi and coke did not change their formula, holding all else constant, what would have happened to the demand for these goods, assuming pepsi and coke were in a competitive market? a. the demand curve for both pepsi and coke would have shifted to the right, causing the price of both products to decrease and the profits for the companies to fall. b. the demand curve for pepsi and coke would have remained unchanged, but the price of both products would have decreased and the profits for the companies would have fallen. c. the demand curve for pepsi and coke would have decreased, but the prices and profits would not have changed. d. the demand curve for only one of them would change because pepsi and coke are substitutes. e. the demand curve for pepsi and coke would have shifted to the left, causing the price of both products to decrease and the profits for both companies to fall.