What are the Principles of Microeconomics?

1. The fisherman cannot out- compete with the other fishermen as there is a problem of scarcity, where there are limited resources and unlimited wants. The fishes are a natural source and they cannot be enough to fulfil the desire of the fishermen.
B. The evidence that to outcompete the other fisherman's, one fisherman has fish for a longer period so that he/she can collect many fishes.

2. The reasons behind the problem is again the lack of resources, the fisherman's have enough skills and equipment but the number of fishers in the community all having the same desire will make it difficult for them to survive in the economy later. As the production of fishes is limited.

3. To have a desirable situation and where each of the fisherman's gets the equal opportunity and profit in the business. They can operate as one market, where they won't act as the competitors in the market and whatever sales and profit is earned per day or per month can be divided among all the fishermen. This will help in controlling scarcity and there will be less opportunity cost involved.

4. The implications that may occur from this scenario is that the fishermen at some point would want to gain all the profits and acct as a separate firm. This might come in as they would believe that they are not being paid according to the skills, energy and time they are putting in.

A. The issue between the florist and beekeeper is due to the increase in the production of the red roses of the florist as the bees from the beekeeper have been pollinating the flowers. The increased rate of production of the red roses has made the beekeeper to demand for a price to be paid by the florist.

B. There is no actual evidence that the beekeeper can provide to the florist. Economics is a study of social science which helps in examining the choices made by people when they have variety of choices available.

C. This justification of whether the florist should be paying to the beekeeper cannot be answered by economics. As these are normative questions, and there is no exact answer for the context. There may be different answers, however we can justify this through the concept of positive externalities.

D. The florist can argue on the basis that there is no actual evidence available that would help the beekeeper to justify his evidence.

E. There are no potential implications that would arise as the beekeeper cannot ask for the unrequested services. These services provided are for the community and can be considered as a positive externality. For instance, if someday the bees from the beekeeper stings a person or an individual they cannot claim the money or a lump sum of the sting the bee had made. Therefore, there are no possible implications as this would be just a case of negative externalities in terms of economics.

(Some parts of the solution has been blurred due to privacy protection policy)