Answer:
C. protected property rights; were extractive and authoritarian
Explanation:
Based on the work of Acemoglu, Johnson and Robinson there were different types of colonization policies which created different sets of institutions. These authors argued that the colonization path was strongly influenced by feasibility of settlements. On the one hand, tropical places where diseases were more likely and affected Europeans the most, settlers formed extractive institutions. These institutions were not designed to protect private property or provide checks and balances against government expropriation. Their main objective was to transfer as much of the resources of the colony to the colonizer. On the other hand, where climates were more moderate, settlers seek to replicate European institutions, emphasizing private property and checks and balances against government power.
Answer:
22%
Explanation:
Margin of Safety is the amount by which sales can fall before making a loss.
Margin of Safety = Expected Sales - Break-even Sales ÷ Expected Sales
= (13,600 - 10,608) ÷ 13,600
= 0.22 or 22%
Most people in Hospitality and Tourism careers get success with secondary education only as they receive on-job training to learn what they need to know.
<h3>What is a Hospitality and Tourism career?</h3>
Hospitality and Tourism career jobs involve providing planning, management, food, recreation, travel, and similar services. These jobs provide higher monetary perks.
No minimum education is required to get a job in a hospitality and tourism career. This industry values experience more than education.
People are more likely to get success in hospitality and tourism as they learn and update themselves while doing the job. On-job training is an essential advantage of these careers.
Therefore, the correct option is c.
Learn more about hospitality and tourism career here:
brainly.com/question/2789223
Answer:
Best answer is B) What are the costs of transporting raw materials, components, and finished products?
Explanation:
Answer:
Sometimes our justice system can really surprise us. How can a person sue another individual based on arguments that are known to be false? Shouldn't the courts just say no to this kind of lawsuits?
It's plain common sense that the court would dictate that the agreement should be annulled or rescinded based on the mother's fraud attempt or maybe mutual mistake between Michael Jordan and her. Even if they were both convinced that he was the father, after it was proven that he wasn't, the court shouldn't have even wasted its time (and taxpayers money) with this case.
