Answer:
a. rises but real GDP per person falls
Explanation:
Gross domestic product is the total monetary value of output that is produced by an economy in a given period.
GDP increases as the income increases. This is because people have more money to spend on goods and services.
So if people are retiring they will earn pension that will be spent. This increases productivity of the economy.
However since the number of people working is reducing there will be a reduction in real GDP per person. Only few people are producing and output will be allocated to a large population many of whom are not working.
Answer:
$74.62
Explanation:
Div₀ = $1.09
expected growth $0.19 per year
Div₁ = $1.28
Div₂ = $1.47
Div₃ = $1.66
Div₄ = $1.85
Div₅ = $2.04
then constant growth rte of 5.3%
equity cost = 7.5%
first we need to determine the stock price in year 5 using the Gordon growth model:
stock price = [dividend x (1+g)] / (Re - g) = ($2.04 x 1.053) / (7.5% - 5.3%) = $97.64
now we can discount all the future cash flows:
stock price = $1.28/1.075 + $1.47/1.075² + $1.66/1.075³ + $1.85/1.075⁴ + $2.04/1.075⁵ + $97.64/1.075⁵ = $1.19 + $1.27 + $1.34 + $1.39 + $1.42 + $68.01 = $74.62
Answer:
The agency's interpretive rules.
Explanation:
An interpretive rule can be defined as a document issued by an agency so as to help expound or clarify existing administrative laws, regulations and statutes in the public domain.
Basically, an interpretive rule is not required to meet the minimum requirements or criteria specified by the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). Also, an interpretive rule is not considered as a force of law because it is not binding on the general public.
Hence, for insight into a government agency's understanding of the laws it administers, one should consult the agency's interpretive rules for an explanation on the law and regulations it promulgated,
In order for a statewide income tax to be approved, there must be a vote with the majority approving the measure.
<span>Texas will not implement a statewide income tax in the immediate future because the voters will disapprove the measure.</span>
<span>Unsure if there is a question posed or implied here. In any event, Trevor should have immediately researched and documented the suspect batch(es) of peanut butter, contacted any retailers who may have received the contaminated batches and then confirmed that those batches had been returned to his plant and destroyed. At the same time he should have instructed his employees to shut down the production of peanut butter, destroy the plants current output, and completely clean, inspect and retest the line in order to ensure that uncontaminated peanut butter was being produced. During this self-inspection stage, he shoudl have also notified the US FDA and reported onwhat had been done and documented.</span>
