Answer:
1. Under what condition(s) can an economy make a relatively quick and easy transition to full-employment level of output?
Classical economics are great theoretically, but actual evidence from real life is always against them. The problem with wages and unemployment is that wages are sticky, no one likes a wage cut and employees will always fight against them. That results in drastic changes in the level of unemployment, since it is easier to fire employees than lower their salaries.
When a demand shock occurs, and the aggregate demand curve shifts to the right, the aggregate supply curve will also shift. At this point, suppliers will need to hire more employees and fast since they cannot keep up with the demand. The problem is that in real life, demand shocks are sudden only in theory, no one will wake up tomorrow having twice the money and willing to spend it all immediately.
Classical economics work on the long run, but the problem is that the long run is not a definite point in time. We might actually never live to see the long run occur.
2. What condition(s) would keep an economy from moving back to full employment quickly and easily?
Shifts in the aggregate demand curve never occur from one day to another, they are gradual and take time. In real life, unless you suddenly win the lottery, the amount of goods that you purchase is generally stable. It will increase or decrease over time but not abruptly. Since sudden demand shocks do not occur in real life, neither do sudden shifts in the employment level. That is why the government issues monthly unemployment data, and you analyze the trends over several months or even years.
Answer:
Dr. Allowance for Doubtful Accounts $7,400
Cr. Accounts Receivable $7,400
Explanation:
A write off eliminates the account receivable balance. It is recorded as the debit to Allowance for Doubtful Accounts because of its credit nature. It reduces the balance of the allowance use it for actual write off. On the other hand it credit the account receivable balance to reduce it as it is debit in nature.
Under the ERISA, A person who is a licensed public accountant, licensed by a regulatory authority of a foreign government would not be considered a qualified public accountant as defined by Section 103. Thus, Option C is the correct statement.
<h3>Who is a qualified public accountant u/s 103?</h3>
Under the section 103(a)(3)(D) of ERISA the term “qualified public accountant” means—
(i) someone who's an authorized public accountant, licensed through a regulatory authority of a State;
(ii) someone who's a certified public accountant, licensed through a regulatory authority of a State, or
(iii) someone certified through the Secretary as a qualified public accountant according to policies posted through the Secretary for a person who practices in States where there may be no certification or licensing procedure for accountants.
Under the ERISA, A person who is a licensed public accountant, licensed by a regulatory authority of a foreign government would not be considered a qualified public accountant as defined by Section 103. Thus, Option C is the correct statement.
learn more about qualified public accountants:
brainly.com/question/24538077
#SPJ1
Answer:
True
Explanation:
Risk management culture is a generally acceptable set standards and attributes in the management and mitigation of risk. Supervisors have a core duty in ensuring availability of resources.
Answer:
- KrAmerica will bear the risk of the loss
- George will not get full recovery for the value of the necklace
Explanation:
George only made some payments for the necklace and he had not taken possession of it yet. So the risk for the loss is with KrAmerica since they are the current owners of the necklace.
George was only to take possession of the necklace when payment was completed.
On the other hand George is seeking full recovery of the value of the necklace.
He has only made a part payment on the necklace, so he is not entitled to get the full value of the necklace.
Only the amount he has paid will be refunded to him.