Answer:
Hi
It meant a political situation among the states in which none of them achieved a power superior to the others. It is an idea of the late Middle Ages, applied to major or minor geographic regions that comprise the plurality of sovereign territories. Throughout Europe there is a legitimate feeling, always subject to interpretation, whereby any action required the confirmation of the rest of the States, the most significant case being the invasion of a territory. In this way the doctrine of just war was reached, to the problem of to what extent and to what extent the actual or imminent engraving of a State could mean a warlike justification. Transactions between contestants, neutral or rival, never ended, hence the relevance of diplomacy, as the concepts of balance, neutrality, freedom of Europe or sovereignty are interpreted continuously, while being used in conversations. Some thought of equilibrium as a natural system, because it was a consequence of international relations, and when a great power had too much force it threatened the others, and therefore, had to counteract the disproportion. Others considered it a desired goal for which he had fought.
In the rest of the world this balance of powers is characterized by the profusion of dictatorial or authoritarian regimes that have dominated the political scene and that have influenced the future of their peoples. A second point is the emergence of serious and bloody war conflicts, by territorial issues, which is not explained very well both in its unleashing and in its results, as consequences of the mere quantification of the powers faced. In all these, both in its gestation and its consequences, the role it plays in the character, personal ambitions and strategic conceptions of the leaders or rulers who govern the destinies of the countries involved appears with particular relevance.
Explanation:
Answer: (e.) The same pay as either a professor or as a chief economist at the Humane Society.
Explanation:
The correct answer would be <u>option (e)</u> because in this case there lies an ambiguity i.e. we are uncertain about skillets that an economists should be endowed with or for being a faculty member.
Therefore , it can be concluded that he would get at least as good pay as being faculty. In both cases he'll be better off.
The cost of adding more options. Supply and demand: would the students want to have salad for lunch, or would it go to waste?
According to the given statement Lindsey holt purchased preferred stock.
The correct option is B.
<h3>What is the preferred stock?</h3>
Preferred stock, which is a component of share capital and is commonly referred to as a combination indicator, is an asset that has any combination of features that common shares does not, such as those of an equity and a promissory note.
<h3>How do preferred stocks work?</h3>
securities with a repaired par value that pays dividends at a fixed rate, generally based on a proportion of the par value. The market price of preferred shares, like bonds, is dependent on changes in interest rates. When interest rates rise, the value of the preferred stock falls.
To know more about preferred stock visit:
brainly.com/question/15078323
#SPJ4
I understand that the question you are looking for is:
Lindsey Holt owns stock in the Galloway Gems Company. She knows in advance that the dividend on this stock is a $1.50 per share and that it is a promised or contractual and constant dividend . Given this, you know for sure that she purchased which type of stock?
A. Green chip
B. Preferred
C. Penny
D. Uncommon
E. Growth
