Answer:
The criticism is true to a certain degree, and unjustified to another degree.
Explanation:
It is true in the sense that the U.S. has indeed lost a lot of manufacturing to Mexico, simply because Mexico has far lower labor costs, and U.S. manufacturers have decided to take advantage of that by taking their plants to Mexican states.
It is also true that Mexico has been running a trade surplus with the United States in recent years, mainly because of the large manufacturing sector that Mexico has been developing.
On the other hand, the criticism is unjustified because neither a trade deficit nor the moving of manufacturing to Mexico mean that the United States as a whole is in worst condition than before NAFTA. In fact, most economists agree that free trade is a good thing for the economy as a whole, and that most people benefit from the lower costs and specialization that trade brings about.
The problem lies then, in the people who lose their jobs: formerly unionized manufacturing workers from the Rust Belt, for example. These people need to be helped with government assitance, both in terms of welfare, and training, so that they can find new jobs and make ends meet in the meanwhile.
Answer:
I think it's C, New products bring great rewards with little risk
Answer:
Shoe-leather Costs.
Explanation:
In this scenario, Bob manages a grocery store in a country experiencing a high rate of inflation. He is paid in cash twice per month. On payday, he immediately goes out and buys all the goods he will need over the next two weeks in order to prevent the money in his wallet from losing value.
What he can't spend, he converts into a more stable foreign currency for a steep fee. This is an example of the Shoes-leather costs of inflation.
A Shoe-leather costs refers to the costs of time, energy and effort people expend to mitigate the effect of high inflation on the depreciative purchasing power of money by frequently visiting depository financial institutions in order to minimize inflation tax they pay on holding cash.
Metaphorically, it ultimately implies that in order to protect the value of money or assets, some people wear out the sole of their shoes by going to financial institutions more frequently to make deposits.
Hence, Bob is practicing a shoe-leather cost of inflation so as to reduce the nominal interest rates.
Answer:
Interest for second year $2,114.08
Explanation:
given data
loan Amount = $40,000.00
Interest rate r = 6.00%
time period t = 7
solution
we get here first Equal Monthly Payment EMI that is express as
EMI = 
................1
here P is Loan Amount and r is rate and t is time period
put here value and we get
EMI = 
EMI = $7165.40
now
we get here interest for second year that is
Closing balance at year 1 = opening balance + Interest - EMI Payment
Closing balance at year 1 = $40,000 + $2400 - $7165.40
Closing balance at year 1 = $35234.60
so Interest for second year $2,114.08
