Answer: A. output, investment, and depreciation will decrease and consumption will increase and then decrease but finally approach a level above its initial state.
Explanation: from the above question, an economy that is in a steady-state with no population growth or technological change and the capital stock is above the Golden Rule level and the saving rate falls then output, investment, and depreciation will decrease and consumption will increase and then decrease but finally approach a level above its initial state.
Generally, a firm's asset deflation mostly reflects a decline in the productive capacity of assets and therefore reduces potential output.
<h3>What is an
asset deflation?</h3>
This refers to the general reduction in the value of firm's assets such as lands, homes, office, machine etc \.
Most time, the firm's asset deflation mostly reflects a decline in the productive capacity of assets and therefore reduces potential output.
Therefore, the Option A is correct.
Read more about asset deflation
<em>brainly.com/question/25179281</em>
#SPJ12
Answer: An unfavorable variance can be used to detect a drop in estimated income early, and then solutions to the challenge can be identified.
Explanation:
An unfavorable variance is the difference between a company's projected expectation and the actual outcome of a financial activity of the company, where the actual outcome is less favorable than the projected expectation.
The information from an unfavorable variance can help alert a company to a negative outcome early, and the company's leadership can then find ways of solving the cause of the negative outcome.
Answer:
89.63% of 2nd month payment will go towards the payment of principal.
Explanation:
Loan Payament per month = r ( PV ) / 1 - ( 1 + r )^-n
r = rate per period = 12% per year = 1% per month
n = number months = 12 months
PV = present value of all payments = $82,500
P = payment per month = ?
P = 1% ( $82,500 ) / 1 - ( 1 + 1% )^-12
P = $7,330 per month
Month Payments Principal Interest Balance
1 -7330 -6505 -825 75995
2 -7330 -6570 -760 69,425
Percentage of Principal Payment = Principal payment / totla monthly payment = $6,570 / $7,330 = 0.8963 = 89.63%
Answer:
Explanation:
Issue: Will the court rule in support of Daniel’s argument that Nintendo breached the warranty based on reasonable expectation on the performance of an expensive system and statements made while selling the gaming system?
Rule: There is a creation of express warranty when a seller makes a description of the statement quality, condition or performance of goods sold. This warranty is created by the statement of facts and if the seller uses words to designate the value of the supposed goods, it will only be considered as an opinion that does not create any express warranty.
The customer’s reasonable expectation of the existence of the gaming system based on the price leads to implied warranty. The goods sold should be logically fit for the general purpose for which it is sold. It should be of proper quality to satisfy the implied warranty of merchantability and the goods should fit the particular purpose for which the buyer will use the goods to satisfy the implied warranty of fitness for a particular purpose.
Analysis: Here, the argument of Daniel that Nintendo’s description of the gaming system as “most reliable”, and “durable” asserted that the quality and performance of the gaming system will not stay because these words create general statements that are made as part of sale or seller’s opinion about the goods. These words would be considered as puffery and do not create any express warranty. The higher price of the gaming system would create an implied warranty about the performance of the system, but the switch failed only after the warranty period. When the seller has expressly stated the warranty period as one year, any defects that occur after the warranty period will not breach the implied warranty.
Moreover, the gaming system was reasonably fit for Daniel’s business purpose and worked well during the warranty period. Hence Daniel’s arguments will not stay in front of the court.
Conclusion: The court will not rule in favor of Daniel and Daniel will not be able to recover against Nintendo because no breach of warranty had occurred.
