Answer:
Option (a) is correct.
Explanation:
Given that,
Completed units during June = 65,000 units
Ending inventory units = 7,000 units
Beginning inventory units = 4,000 units
Number of material equivalent units of production in the June 30:
= Completed units during June + Ending inventory units - Beginning inventory units
= 65,000 units + 7,000 units - 4,000 units
= 68,000 units
Therefore, the number of material equivalent units of production is 68,000 units.
The effective interest rate is calculated through the equation,
ieff = (1 + i/r)^r - 1
where ieff is the effective interest, i is the nominal interest, and r is the number of 15 weeks in a year. Every year, there are 52 weeks. Thus, there are 3.467 15-weeks approximately. Substituting this into the equation,
ieff = (1 + 0.04/3.467)^3.467 - 1
ieff = 0.04057
ieff = 4.057%
1 increasing audience
2 payment methods and or growing page
3 yes help others and myself
4 insta due to its growing capacity
Answer:
The potential of additional regional currencies such as the euro is very important, and for this reason, many economists support the idea. In fact, John Maynard Keynes, one of the most influential economists in history, once proposed not a regional common currency, but a common global currency.
The potential lies in the fact that regional currencies allow to coordinate a common monetary policy in several countries. This common policy means that several countries now have the same interest rates, the same rate of inflation, and the same currency itself, and all these commonalities facilitate the exchange of goods and services.
While the Euro has had drawbacks since its inception, the Euro has survived, and is now one of the strongest curriencies in the world.
If you support the concept, should those currencies be tied to regional economic blocs?
I support the concept, and I agree that they should be tied to regional economic bloc. It would not be very effective to adopt a common currency for countries that are not economically integrated in other areas.
Answer:
Both parties experience surplus, but there is inequity because Steve has a much larger producer surplus
Explanation:
The options to this question wasn't provided. Here are the options : Both parties experience surplus, but there is inequity because Steve has a much larger producer surplus. Both parties experience surplus, so the transaction was equitable. Only Steve benefits from the sale. Srivani will not be happy with her purchase.
Consumer surplus is the difference between the willingness to pay of a consumer and the price of the good.
Producer surplus is the difference between the price of a good and the least amount the seller is willing to sell his good.
While both parties earn a surplus, the producer surplus exceeds the consumer surplus . Therefore, the seller benefited more from the trade than the consumer.
I hope my answer helps you
