The policy of striking a nation contemplating hostile actions against another is Prevention.
It is not deterrence, appeasement, or containment.
The policy is preventive and aims to neutralize the aggressive nation by weakening its military infrastructure at its home base. Preventive strikes also bring war destruction to the aggressor's home, thereby minimizing the damages from military actions at home.
Thus, the policy of striking a nation is "Prevention."
Learn more: brainly.com/question/3822299
Answer:
a. If all money is held as currency then the banks create no additional money and money supply is = $1,000
b. If all money is in banks but the banks are not loaning it out as they are keeping it in reserves, no loans will be created. Supply is still $1,000.
c. The total money is the amount of deposits multiplied by the money multiplier.
Money Multiplier = 1/required reserve
= 1/0.2
= 5
Supply = 1,000 * 5
= $5,000
d. With equal amounts held as currency and demand deposits, the money multiplier will be;
=
Currency deposit ratio is 1 as the ratio to demand deposits is equal which = 1.
=
= 1.67
Money supply = 1,000 * 1.67
= $1,670
e. If the Central bank increases the money supply by 10% then the monetary base would increase by;
= 10% * 1,000
= $100
Answer:
The correct answer would be option C, By producing more than it consumes.
Explanation:
A developing country can generate internal funds by producing more than it consumes.
Internal funds are the funds that are generated internally, either at the individual level or at the country level. When a country generates funds on its own, the funds are called as the internal funds.
So internal funds can be generated by producing more than the consumption requirements. In this way the economic activities will increase, the money supply would be better and the country would be able to generate funds it need.
Answer: The company
Explanation: The burden of proving the exemption issued by the CEO of ABC furniture should ABC be issued to appear at an hearing in other to defend its stance on the exemption issued will be on the company. Even though the the exemption was made by the Chief Executive Officer of the company. The burden of proof lies on the shoulder of the corporation which requests for the exemption and not the individual who make the exemption request on behalf of the corporation which is the corporation's CEO and not the Administrator on which exemption was made. Thus proving the legality of an exemption always rests on the shoulder of the requesting corporation.