Answer: D. The state law violates the principles of intergovernmental immunity as applied to the manager
Explanation:
Based on the information given, the manager's best defense against the imposition of the fine is that the state law violates the principles of intergovernmental immunity as applied to the manager.
We should note that unless Congress agrees to a particular regulation, the state doesn't have the power to regulate federal government activities and therefore cannot interfere with federal functions. Therefore, the regulation in this case isn't applicable to the manager.
Answer:
ha will be multiplied by others poststhe answer is poster of anybody should be result the oil region for the 2010 the water holster desert – or result in
Answer:
C. A rise in saving does not change aggregate demand.
Explanation:
Say's law states that the production of goods creates its own demand.
According to Say's law, in a money economy, a rise in saving does not change aggregate demand because total expenditure amount does not change, it only moves from consumption category to the investment category in equal proportion.
Also, disposable income stays constant and consumption decreases, while savings increases.
Savings = disposable income - consumption.
Answer: D) Output decreases by more than 25 percent
Explanation:
When a firm is said to be experiencing Increasing Returns to Scale, it means that for every additional unit of a factor of production, the firm experiences a higher increase in production than the additional unit. For example, if a Firm's output increases by 1.5 every time they hire an extra worker, the firm is said to be going through Increasing Returns to Scale.
With that same logic, if factors of production were reduced, the company undergoes a reduction in output that is bigger than the reduction in the factor of production.
For this reason, option D is correct in saying that Output decreases by more than 25 percent.
