In my opinion, it is called subtle discrimination. Unlike blatant discrimination, which consists in openly humiliating a member of a minority based on their personal traits, subtle discrimination is much more perfidious, as it is not always easy to point finger at it or to legally assess it. Sometimes, it even happens as a consequence of seemingly good intentions. For example, if I use lower standards to grade Afro-Americans in a class of mixed students, it still means I assume they are less capable or educated, even if I do it because I know that they had been oppressed and had historically had less chance to educate themselves.
Honestly you should answer this one yourself it seems like a question that contains your own answer
Answer: B- Purchase of the company's own stock
Explanation:
Stock repurchases is a transactions that causes a negative cash flow from financing activities
Answer:$ 50 million
Explanation:
We know GDP is calculated as the sum of consumption spending(C),Investment spending(I),Government spending(G) and net export(X).
Here
- Consumption spending
- investment spending
- Government spending
- $5 million worth tables are sold abroad
- no tables are imported.
At the end of year
GDP=C+I+G+X-M
GDP=10+20+10+5-0=$45 million
and the remaining 50,000 table worth of $5 million in inventory goes to the investment made by private sector
thus value of GDP is $ 50 million.
Answer:
Yes, Judy and Kristy do have an enforceable contract.
Explanation:
Kristy made a valid offer to Judy and Judy accepted.
In the offer letter, Kristy told Judy to "please respond to Bruce Townsend", but she did not specify that the only proper mode of acceptance was the response to Bruce. Since she did not specify that Judy could not respond directly to her, Judy's letter of acceptance to Kristy's offer is valid.
