any guidance with any of this quwstion would bw apprecited

Suppone you are convidering beconsing a profewional athlete. Whilst a pro athlete can expect to make a lot of money when they're young, they may stnigyle to find gainful employment later in Life. If you decide against going pro, you can expect a much steadier income, though perhaps not quite as lacrative at 21 . Which will you choose?? Let's set this up formally. - Suppose that you live for two periods, t=1,2. - If you go poo, in =I, you will eam Y?p, which is more than what you wouk earn in f=l if you do not go pro, Y12 i.e. Y1P>Y1Np. - However, in period t=2, as a pro you will earn zero: Y2Z=0. By contrast, Y2EW>0. - Being a pro athlete makes you a prominent public figure. In period t=1, you have to pay security guards a fixed amosat S to keep you safe from the mob of fans who no doube follow your every insta, - Once yoar professional career is over, you are quickly forgotten, so you don't have to spend anything on security in t=2(SadQ). - Non-pros have no such problems they do not pay S in {=l or f=2. - You have well-behaved preferences (you like more convameption, and you have decreaving nargital utility in consumption in both periods) - You can horrow and kend at the rate r an asset b. - You are melfish! No bequeathenents from past generations, and you pass on nothing. First suppose that you do not go pro 1. Write down the dynamic budget cotutraint 2. Derive the intertemporal budget consraint 3. Show griphically the budget constraint and the optimal consumption point in period 1 and 2 . Make saic olais Now suppose you do go pro 4. Write down the dyramic budget constraitut 5. Derive the intertemporal budget constaint 6. Using the same graph as in part 3, draw the new budget constraint and the new optimal consumption point. 7. Should you go pro? ' Under what coexlitions is it better to go pro? Explain, and give intuition. Suppone that the government feels sad for athletes and derides to subsidize retired athletes when they're old. This can't be free! In order to pay them the subvidy, G, the government taves you an amenut T. liote chat yow pary thii whether you go pro or met" Suppose that the government balances their budzet, so G=T. 8. Derive the intertemporal budget constraints for the pro and not-pro case using the abone atsunyption about subridies/taxes. 9. Using an intuitive argument, are you more or less likely to go pro under this govemanent policy? Suppone you are convidering beconsing a profewional athlete. Whilst a pro athlete can expect to make a lot of money when they're young, they may stnigyle to find gainful employment later in Life. If you decide against going pro, you can expect a much steadier income, though perhaps not quite as lacrative at 21 . Which will you choose?? Let's set this up formally. - Suppose that you live for two periods, t=1,2. - If you go poo, in =I, you will eam Y?p, which is more than what you wouk earn in f=l if you do not go pro, Y12 i.e. Y1P>Y1Np. - However, in period t=2, as a pro you will earn zero: Y2Z=0. By contrast, Y2EW>0. - Being a pro athlete makes you a prominent public figure. In period t=1, you have to pay security guards a fixed amosat S to keep you safe from the mob of fans who no doube follow your every insta, - Once yoar professional career is over, you are quickly forgotten, so you don't have to spend anything on security in t=2(SadQ). - Non-pros have no such problems they do not pay S in {=l or f=2. - You have well-behaved preferences (you like more convameption, and you have decreaving nargital utility in consumption in both periods) - You can horrow and kend at the rate r an asset b. - You are melfish! No bequeathenents from past generations, and you pass on nothing. First suppose that you do not go pro 1. Write down the dynamic budget cotutraint 2. Derive the intertemporal budget consraint 3. Show griphically the budget constraint and the optimal consumption point in period 1 and 2 . Make saic olais Now suppose you do go pro 4. Write down the dyramic budget constraitut 5. Derive the intertemporal budget constaint 6. Using the same graph as in part 3, draw the new budget constraint and the new optimal consumption point. 7. Should you go pro? ' Under what coexlitions is it better to go pro? Explain, and give intuition. Suppone that the government feels sad for athletes and derides to subsidize retired athletes when they're old. This can't be free! In order to pay them the subvidy, G, the government taves you an amenut T. liote chat yow pary thii whether you go pro or met" Suppose that the government balances their budzet, so G=T. 8. Derive the intertemporal budget constraints for the pro and not-pro case using the abone atsunyption about subridies/taxes. 9. Using an intuitive argument, are you more or less likely to go pro under this govemanent policy