Land acquisition means that you buy a piece of land and make it your property
Brian thinks that the government’s new law is a good idea while the Pena family is wary of the new law.
<h3>How to illustrate the information?</h3>
From the information, Brian thinks that the government’s new law is a good idea because it will reduce the pollution that has had a negative impact on his family. On the other hand, the Pena family is wary of the new law. It will be expensive for them to comply with it.
They worry that they will have to lower their other costs to meet the cost of compliance. They will either have to donate less to charities or lay off some of their employees.
Learn more about law on:
brainly.com/question/820417
#SPJ1
<u>Complete question:</u>
Brian and his family have lived next to a factory for more than 15 years. Brian works at the factory. Although he finds it convenient that his workplace is within walking distance, he’s worried about the negative effect of the pollution caused by the factory on his family. His children have developed asthma, and he and his wife consistently get respiratory illnesses every year. Last night, he saw on the news that the government has just passed a law that limits the amount of pollution every factory in his state can emit. Brian is hopeful now that his family’s health will begin to improve.
Situation 2
The Peña family has owned the local factory for generations. The Penas believe they are good corporate neighbors. They employ many people from the neighborhood, pay their taxes in full and on time, and donate to many charities. When they hear that the government has passed a law that requires companies to limit the amount of pollution they emit, the Penas get a little tense. They realize that it will cost them a huge amount of money to bring their factory into compliance. This expense will make the factory less profitable for them. To offset that loss of profit, they may have to donate less to the charities. They also worry they will not be able to employ as many people.
How do the attitudes of Brian and the Pena family toward the new law differ?
Answer:
La cuenta de ahorro que me hará ganar mas dinero será aquella que capitaliza los intereses a diario.
Explanation:
La capitalización de intereses implica el hecho de que el banco suma los intereses generados al valor inicial, con lo cual se aumenta el capital. Si la cuenta de ahorro capitaliza los intereses a diario, implica que día a día el capital de la cuenta va aumentando, con lo cual el valor de los intereses es mayor día a día, pues se calcula en base a un capital mayor.
Por lo tanto, a mayor capital, mayor será el interés generado, porque si bien el porcentaje de interés no se modifica, sí se incrementa la base sobre la cual éste se calcula, arrojando mayores ganancias.
Indeed, Vivian suffered a legitimate loss and lost money. Yes, liable
<h3>What is money?</h3>
Money is a trade good accepted by general consent as a medium of economic conversation. It is the medium in which prices and values are expressed. It flows from person to person and country to country, making trade, and it is the debt measure of wealth. Money is any good that is widely used and accepted in written accounts involving the transfer of goods and divine service from one person to another.
Maybe doing something very likely to accomplish anything When we are weary, we are all more likely to make mistakes. The bridge could fall down at any time. liable to something is that you are likely to be impacted by it. If you exercise infrequently, you are more likely to get hurt.
Therefore, a legitimate loss and lost money. Yes, liable
Learn more about money here:
brainly.com/question/22984856
#SPJ2
Answer:
Wartime actions.
Explanation:
This statement can be proved by Schenck v. United States (1917).
Schenck was a member of the Socialist Party, and at the time (World War I), the party vehemently opposed the U.S. Draft. As a result of this opposition, Schenck followed the views of his party, and took it upon himself to distribute pamphlets, encouraging people to avoid the draft. Schenck was arrested for violating the 1917 Espionage Act. Schenck made an appeal, arguing that the Espionage Act violated the First Amendment, and eventually that case made it to the Supreme Court of the United States. In the Court's written opinion, it's stated:
"When a nation is at war, many things that might be said in a time of peace are such a hindrance to its effort that their utterance will not be endured so long as men fight, and that no Court could regard them as protected by any constitutional right," (Justice Holmes.)
The Court ruled that the Espionage Act was not in violation of the First Amendment, due to the specific context of this case being "wartime."
