If increased government spending spurs a short-run expansion. The statement that complete the gap is:<u> Shifts to the left</u>, <u>Output endresources.</u>
<h3>What is aggregate supply?</h3>
Aggregate supply can be defined as the overall amount of goods and service that a firm intend to produce and supply at a point in time or at a particular period of time.
If an increase in government spending lead to short run expansion this means that there will be shift in aggregate supply of goods and service as aggregate supply will tend to shift to the left.
Therefore the statement that complete the gap is:<u> Shifts to the left</u>, <u>Output endresources.</u>
Learn more about aggregate supply here:brainly.com/question/19802257
#SPJ1
The shortest-route problem is a special case of the transshipment problem while transportation problems prevent shipments from entering and exiting some nodes, the transshipment problem does.
<h3>What are transshipment?</h3>
Transshipment is the loading and unloading of goods and stuff from one transport vehicle to another vehicle.
Transshipment happens because of no direct connection between the ports, due to this the goods are transported to different vehicles.
Thus, while transportation problems prevent shipments from entering and exiting some nodes, the transshipment problem does.
Learn more about transshipment
brainly.com/question/19131337
#SPJ4
Answer:
One typical example of this linkage between the economy at the macroeconomic level, and business decisions at the macroeconomic and microeconomic level, is what happened with Lehman Brothers in 2008.
Explanation:
Lehman Brothers was one of the main investment banks in the United States. During the years prior to the financial crisis, Lehman Brothers decided to pursue a risky but profitable strategy of over leveraging -lending a lot more money than they had as deposits.
Once the financial crisis hit, a macroeconomic event, it affected the company at the macro and micro level. At the macro level because Lehman Brothers itself ceased to exist as it went bankrupt, and at the micro level, because it had to enter a process to pay off some debtors, and some of the employees who were laid off due to the dissolution of the firm.
Answer:
$1,099,203.00
Explanation:
In this question we have to find out the future value that is shown in the attachment below:
Provided that
Present value = $0
Rate of interest = 8% ÷ 2 = 4%
NPER = 25 years × 2 = 50 years
PMT = $1,200 × 6 months = $7,200
The formula is shown below:
= -FV(Rate;NPER;PMT;PV;type)
So, after solving this, the future value is $1,099,203.00
