1answer.
Ask question
Login Signup
Ask question
All categories
  • English
  • Mathematics
  • Social Studies
  • Business
  • History
  • Health
  • Geography
  • Biology
  • Physics
  • Chemistry
  • Computers and Technology
  • Arts
  • World Languages
  • Spanish
  • French
  • German
  • Advanced Placement (AP)
  • SAT
  • Medicine
  • Law
  • Engineering
jonny [76]
3 years ago
9

Failure to address the three questions of economics will have what kind of impact on an economy?

Social Studies
2 answers:
m_a_m_a [10]3 years ago
6 0

C-It will have negative consequences.

mamaluj [8]3 years ago
4 0
<h2>Option C It will have negative consequences.</h2>

The three questions of economics;

  • What to Produce? A real command economy is about the production that is defined by a primary economic authorization. The true free market production is planned by unique preferences. Nevertheless, most states befall around within an actual command economy and a truly free market and production is concluded by a blend of fundamental preparation and personal preferences.
  • How to Produce? There are several methods to design a product or service of the similar essence. As a businessperson, it is necessary to possess a distinct perception of total dilemmas.
  • For Whom to Produce? All goods and services are invented for notable to consume. A free market, who understands the defined by capability to produce at a rate decided by supply and demand.
You might be interested in
What is the recipe of an empire​
bezimeni [28]

You need a strong military, strong education, dependable citizens, and also your own language

4 0
3 years ago
Read 2 more answers
True or false
Eduardwww [97]

Answer:

TRUE

Explanation:

Because the colonists had not control over what parliament did to them.

5 0
2 years ago
Individual preference can be considered when making decisions in science.
Tasya [4]

Answer:

false

Explanation:

science is based on facts, things that can be proven and shown, not preference

8 0
3 years ago
How has the United Kingdom maintained an important role in world affairs
kenny6666 [7]

The UK's world role: Great Britain's greatness fixation

Editorial

Mon 25 Jan 2010 00.05 GMT First published on Mon 25 Jan 2010 00.05 GMT

Shares

3

Comments

130

In some eyes, but most notably its own, the British government will be in the driving seat of world events this week. Today, G7 finance ministers will be in London to discuss inter­national banking reform and the transaction tax, and – in the claim that the City minister, Paul Myners, makes on our comment pages today – the UK will be "leading international efforts". On Wednesday, diplomats from around the world will meet here to discuss the threat to Yemen from al-Qaida. A day later, attention shifts to another international conference in London, this time on the imperilled future of Afghanistan. Quite a week.

Every country likes to be taken seriously around the world. Lots of nations like to feel they are punching their weight, or even above it. Only a few, however, seem to feel the need to promote themselves as the one the others all look to for leadership. It is one thing – though never uncontroversial, and in some contexts increasingly implausible – for the United States to see itself in this role. As the world's largest economic and military power, the US remains even now the necessary nation in international affairs. It is quite another thing for Britain to pretend to such a status.

Advertisement

The continuing pre-eminence of American clout has been starkly shown by what has happened in banking over the last several days. Domestic political pressures spurred President Obama into declaring a war on the money men, and markets worldwide immediately trembled, as they grasped that his plan could unleash a global drive to split retail and investment banking. There should be no shame for London in wholeheartedly welcoming the initiative while admitting that Britain could never have made such a move on its own. Instead, however, the government carries on as if its own detailed plans for banks' living wills, and its distant dreams of a Tobin tax, are framing the debate.

Britain is a very important country. The sixth-largest economy in the world. The fifth-largest military power. Its claim to what the former prime minister Lord Home used to call a seat at the top table is beyond dispute, though it would be a still more influential one if we sometimes ceded it to the European Union. And yet, more than half a century after the loss of empire, our political culture still seems racked by the need to be the leading nation, not just one of them. Such delusions are most associated with the political right, but Gordon Brown can also seem peculiarly ensnared by them. His Britain must always be first, always at the forefront, must always show the way to the rest. Even in the G7, the G8 or the G20 – never mind the UN – a mere share of the action is never enough, and it must always be Britain that is leading the effort, whether in Yemen or Afghanistan. But this way hubris lies. Mr Brown immodestly let slip to MPs in 2008 that he had saved the world. And as he arrived in Copenhagen for the ill-fated climate change summit last month he announced that "There are many outstanding issues which I'm here to resolve."

In reality, of course, no single nation can resolve the world's problems alone. Only the United States and China, separately or together, can even aspire to set the agenda for the rest. If the US raises its commitment to Afghanistan then other nations are likely to follow. If the US penalises the banks, others soon fall into line.

Britain has no such potency. Yet we still struggle to adjust to our reality. We can propose, as we shall be doing in three important London meetings this week, but we cannot dispose. Every day, the descant of the Chilcot inquiry reminds us of where the refusal to recognise this truth can humiliatingly lead. Our national interest should be to play our important role as a true, trusted and committed European partner on the world stage. No longer the greatest. Just one great among others. Good enough ought to be good enough. The people get it. If only the politicians did too.


7 0
3 years ago
What is the purpose of the preamble of our constitution
nikitadnepr [17]

Answer:

The Preamble is essentially the thesis statement of the Constitution; it outlines the purpose of the text ("we the people... do ordain and establish this Constitution"), what will be discussed in the text ("provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare"), and the overall message the authors are trying to get across ("in order to form a more perfect union").

Explanation:

5 0
3 years ago
Read 2 more answers
Other questions:
  • What is the meaning of relief
    12·2 answers
  • The blue line on this map represents the major river
    13·2 answers
  • Difference between hofstede and trompenaars
    5·1 answer
  • A girl has been hit by the school bully and is afraid to go to school. During summer recess her fear of going to school decrease
    11·1 answer
  • GIVING FIVE STAR RATINGS BRAINLIEST AND A HEART(THANK-YOU) TO WHOEVER GETS BEST ANSWER!!! ANSWER QUICK
    10·2 answers
  • Igneous rock that contain pyroxene and amphibole are ​
    7·1 answer
  • oretta is a 76-year-old woman who requires long-term care. She has severe arthritis, which makes it very difficult for her to wa
    6·1 answer
  • How did technology affect world war 1
    5·2 answers
  • Major contributing causes of mental health disorders are environmental conditions and situations.
    5·2 answers
  • Which fact is correct about most food chain?
    7·1 answer
Add answer
Login
Not registered? Fast signup
Signup
Login Signup
Ask question!