<h3>
Answer: A. competition among producers</h3>
==========================================================
Explanation:
Competition reduces prices while also increasing the quality of the product or service. Companies that don't do such things will likely be out of business since the customer can go elsewhere for a better experience. The more competition, the better consumers are off.
In contrast, monopolies are bad for consumers because one company can set the price to whatever they want (to a certain level of course) and the customer has no choice to pay that price. The customer does not have any other option so the company is in full control. This leads to decline in quality because quality is often associated with cost. Safety standards may decline as well. So this is why monopolies are not good for the customer. In cases where there are monopolies, such as with power utilities, it is strongly advised that government regulations are put in place. This way the company doesn't completely exploit the customer.
In short, we can eliminate choice D because it runs counter to choice A.
Choice C can also be eliminated because if you had a decrease in supply, then the price of the product is likely to go up if you hold other factors in check (such as keeping the same level of demand). Higher prices do not benefit consumers unless those consumers had an equal or better wage increase.
A raise in interest rates means that it becomes more expensive to borrow money. For example, a raise in interest rates means that mortgage rates go higher. This negative is slightly counterbalanced with the fact that savings accounts interest rates go up as well. Overall, I think a rise in interest rates means that consumers ultimately pay more, so we can cross choice B off the list as well.
Kenneth Dodge is a psychology and neuroscience professor from Duke University, and according to him, aggressive boys are more likely to perceive another child's actions as hostile only when those whose intention someone close to him or her (peers) is unclear.
The <span>United States home front during World War I</span> saw a systematic mobilization of the country's entire population and economy to produce the soldiers, food supplies, ammunitions and money necessary to win the war. Although the United States entered the war in April 1917, there had been very little planning, or even recognition of the problems that Great Britain and the other Allies had to solve on their own home fronts. As a result, the level of confusion was high in the first 12 months, before efficiency took control.
The war came in the midst of the Progressive Era, when efficiency and expertise were highly valued. Therefore, both individual states and the federal government established a multitude of temporary agencies to bring together the expertise necessary to redirect the economy and society into the production of munitions and food needed for the war, as well as the circulation of beliefs and ideals in order to motivate the people.
3. A and B are your answers. Im pretty sure those are the only two.
