Answer:
She lost $754.05.
Explanation:
Giving the following information:
Liz Mulig earns 52,000 per year as a philosophy professor. She receives a raise of 2.5% in a year in which CPI increases by 3.8%.
<u>The rise in her salary allows her to increase her purchasing power. On the contrary, inflation decreases purchasing power. We need to calculate the differences between both effects and determine whether she can buy more or less.</u>
<u></u>
Increase in salary= 52,000*1.025= $53,300
Inflation effect= 52,000/(1-0.038)= $54,054.05
To maintain her purchasing power, now, she needs to earn $54,054.05.
She lost $754.05.
Answer:
-$475,000
Explanation:
Total revenue = Baskets of peaches × Price
= 100,000 × $3
= $300,000
Explicit cost:
= Rent equipment + wages
= $100,000 + $100,000
= $200,000
Implicit cost:
= Land × Interest + salesman earned
= $1,000,000 × 0.55 + $25,000
= $575,000
Total cost = Explicit cost: + Implicit cost
= $200,000 + $575,000
= $775,000
Economic profit = Total revenue - Total cost
= $300,000 - $775,000
= -$475,000
Answer: indemnification
Explanation: The indemnification clause is essentially the other party's obligation to compensate your damages if they do something that hurts you or allows you to be sued by a third party.
Indemnifying and keeping innocent means the same thing — making it whole after a defeat. Usually, but not always, the obligation to indemnify is reconcilable with the contractual obligation to "keep harmless" or "save harmless.
Hence from the above we can conclude that Rangle has right of indemnification.
Answer:
satisficing
Explanation:
Satisficing is a combination of "satisfy" and "suffice" (or enough). It refers to a situation where instead of trying to reach a completely satisfying solution, you just settle for a relatively good or a so-so solution.
Personally I believe it is something that borders mediocrity, since you should either do something right or do not do it at all. It is like doing something that might work, but not completely.
