Answer:
This is true
Explanation:
This is true mostly because it easier to control internal elements compared to external factors. The increase in control makes change easier. For example, think about how a company would respond to a layoff compared to how they would respond to a natural disaster that destroyed their headquarters.
<span>The Fed sells of reserve bonds to affect the money supply on the open market. Therefore, the fed sells $5 billion worth of T-bonds, then that means they will be taking out a big lump out of your bank put down. In the meantime, the fed sells might pump $5/billion into the financial system by incomplete set aside banking into the grouping and it’s more like $50/billion and the Fed gets the Bonds and the financial system gets the money. Will have to the fed wish to take out cash from the market, it could sell those bonds and take cash out of the economy in trade for bond.</span>
Answer: Risk averse
Explanation:
A person with a diminishing marginal utility of income will derive less utility from income as income increases. A risk averse person is one who would rather avoid risk but still prefers a high income.
Such a person will have a diminishing marginal utility in income because income increases more when there is more risk. A risk averse person does not want that risk and so will go for a lower income which means that they don't want more income as it is riskier to them.
In this scenario with the boat the person that would prevail is the man that bought the boat.
<h3>The reason why the man would prevail</h3>
This is due to the fact that the people that sold him the boat should have made sure that they were not selling a defective item.
The accident was not the fault of the man. The defect should have been well detected and dealt with before the sale of the boat.
Read more on defects here:
brainly.com/question/14857303
#SPJ12