Answer:
The recent loss of 440 manufacturing jobs at Ford Australia has generated a lot of debate about the long-term viability of the Australian car industry, and manufacturing in general. This debate has included arguments that manufacturing is important and needs more government support. It has also seen some commentators argue that Australian’s have no right to expect jobs in manufacturing.
While most of this debate has focused on the automotive manufacturing sector, there is a wider question that needs to be answered. This relates to the issue of whether it is feasible for an advanced economy to grow and prosper without a manufacturing sector?
Explanation:
Answer:
Arithmetic = 3%
Geometric = 2.37%
Explanation:
The arithmetic average of 'n' returns is given by:
For five returns of 5% ,21%, -12%, 7%, and -6%:
The geometric average of 'n' returns is given by:
![G=\sqrt[n]{(1+r_1)*(1+r_2)*...*(1+r_n)}-1](https://tex.z-dn.net/?f=G%3D%5Csqrt%5Bn%5D%7B%281%2Br_1%29%2A%281%2Br_2%29%2A...%2A%281%2Br_n%29%7D-1)
For five returns of 5% ,21%, -12%, 7%, and -6%:
![G=\sqrt[5]{(1+0.05)*(1+0.21)*(1-0.12)*(1+0.07)*(1-0.06)}-1\\G=0.0237=2.37\%](https://tex.z-dn.net/?f=G%3D%5Csqrt%5B5%5D%7B%281%2B0.05%29%2A%281%2B0.21%29%2A%281-0.12%29%2A%281%2B0.07%29%2A%281-0.06%29%7D-1%5C%5CG%3D0.0237%3D2.37%5C%25)
Answer:
The answer is: A) expropriation
Explanation:
Expropriation is the seizure of private property by a government entity or government agency for the purpose of public interest. Usually owners that lose property due to expropriations, receive some type of compensation for their loss. It also can refer to private property being taken away by another private entity with the authorization of a government entity or agency. A common example of expropriation is land being taken away for building roads or dams.
In this case the Quality Dragon plant was expropriated by a private entity who was authorized by the government and the owner was received a monetary compensation for his loss.
Answer:
First we need to first find the equilibrium quantity and price during normal times.
The equilibrium price in normal times is P=$3 and the equilibrium quantity is 55 bottles.
During the hurricane, the government will set a price ceiling of $3. We can infer from the table that the quantity supplied at P=$3 is 55 bottles while the quantity demanded during hurricane at the price of $3 per bottle is 105 bottles. Hence,
105-55= 50
During a hurricane, there would be a shortage of 50 bottles of water.
If there were no price ceiling, then the equilibrium price would be such that the quantity demanded during hurricane equals the quantity supplied. From the table we can see that the equilibrium price would in that case be P=$5 per bottle where the equilibrium quantity is 85 bottles. With the price ceiling only 55 bottles are available for trading. Now without the price ceiling 85 bottles are available.
Hence consumers would have to pay an additional $2 (=5-3) but they can now buy an additional 30 bottles [=85-55].
Without the antiprice gouging law, consumers would have to pay $2 more than the ceiling price, but they would bv able to buy 30 more bottles of water.
Answer:
Option D; JO IS LIABLE TO BIG LOAN CO. SINCE SHE RECEIVED A NOTICE FROM THEM ABOUT THE ASSIGNMENT.
Explanation:
A mortgage is a loan provided by a mortgage lender or a bank that enables an individual to purchase a home.
Mortgage payments usually occur on a monthly basis and consist of four main parts: principal, interest, taxes and insurance.
A transfer of mortgage is the reassignment of an existing mortgage, usually on a home, from the current holder to another person or entity.
When mortgage is transferred, two notices will be sent: one from the current mortgage servicer and the other from the new servicer. All payments after the notification will be made to the new servicer.
Since Jo was notified about the reassignment from Fund All Savings to Big loan Co. but still continues to pay Fund All Savings and Big Loan Co. sues Jo for nonpayment. What is most likely to be the court's judgement is that JO IS LIABLE TO BIG LOAN Co. SINCE SHE RECEIVED A NOTICE FROM THEM ABOUT THE ASSIGNMENT.
