Answer:
E. Profit motive
Explanation:
Profit motive can be defined as the intention, motivation or desire to form a business or engage in business ventures so as to generate financial (monetary) gains.
This ultimately implies that, profit motive is a desire for monetary gains (profits) which motivates a business owner to engage in the sales of finished goods or services.
Hence, profit motive is the premise on which all businesses are built on because the ultimate goal of every business is to achieve financial gains.
In this scenario, the computer accessories that Javier is making and selling are bringing in a substantial amount of money for him. Inspired by this success, he decides to hire two people and expand his business.
Thus, this is an example of profit motive.
Answer:
d. a subpoena duces tecum
Explanation:
In this situation Exgrow Inc violated the Clean Air Act. which is a federal law that was created in order to regulate air pollution on a national level. In order to force Exgrow to give up the computerized reports concerning their pollution the EPA should use a subpoena duces tecum. This is court summons forcing the party in question to appear before the court and provide all the documentation or physical proof regarding the situation at hand. If they do not then they can either get fined or be shut down entirely.
Answer:
Zork's cost of equity capital is 12.85%
Explanation:
Cost of equity=Rf+Beta* Mrp
Rf is the risk-free rate of 4.6% which is rate of return on government security
Beta of the stock is 1.13
Mrp is the market risk premium which is the incentive given over and above the risk free rate in order to compensate investors for risk taken by investing in stock i.e 7.3%
cost of equity=4.6%+(1.13*7.3%)=12.85%
<span>c. common resources are rival in consumption.
In the tragedy of the commons, William Forster Lloyd presented the example of a common resource being over used and destroyed because for any individual abusing the resource, they gained a benefit while the damage to the resource was paid by everyone.
So let's look at the available options and see what makes sense, or doesn't make sense.
a. people consider the value of resources in the future more than in the present.
* If this were true, the there wouldn't be a tragedy of the commons. So this is an incorrect answer.
b. markets do not account for the presence of property rights.
* The tragedy of the commons doesn't involve property rights. EVERYONE in the community is allowed to use the commons. The problem is irresponsible overuse of the common resource. So this is also an incorrect answer.
c. common resources are rival in consumption.
* This is the correct answer. The concept of Rivalry is where a common resource can not be simultaneous consumed by multiple users, or if the consumption of a resource decreases its utility to another consumer. In the tragedy, if one person grazes (consumes) more than their fair share, the commons gets over grazed and over time stops producing. Each person who's overgrazing does get a tangible short term benefit for doing so, but everyone has to pay the cost.
d. government does not efficiently allocate society's scarce resources.
* This is also a wrong answer. It's true that the commons could be regulated by the government, but then it would no longer be the commons.</span>
It is important because that is how you budget and how you are able to save money if an emergency comes up
