Answer:
I HAVE NO IDEA
Explanation:
I need the answer that's why i'm on this page!!!!
Considering the situation described the many economists believe these policies helped avert another Great Depression but exacerbated the <u>inflation</u> problem in the financial system.
This is because the new policies and tools used to tackle the 2007-2008 financial crisis and recession was based on Keynesian economics.
However, while Keynesian economics concentrates on regulating aggregate demand to solve or prevent economic recessions, it is considered <u>inflationary</u>.
This is because it is believed that these policies encourage lower tax rates and increase the national deficit to ensure there is employment.
However, with more money in circulation, many economists believed it would cause inflation and more income disparity.
Hence, in this case, it is concluded that the correct answer is <u>Inflation</u>.
Learn more here: brainly.com/question/20036871
Answer:
$100
Mona Lisa painting
Explanation:
To start with, I will list the 3 primary functions of money, which are;
store of value,
unit of account, and
medium of exchange.
Going by the above, I would say that 2 of the 4 options presented before us are money, why so?
A $100 bill is definitely money, no much explanation is needed here, because it's used daily as a means of exchange between people
2. Euro is not a form of money in the US. While it is a form of money in many other places, it's not in the US because it doesn't satisfy the "medium of exchange" criteria of function of money. Euro can not be spent in a store or anywhere in the country, without it having been first exchanged into dollars
3. Mona Lisa painting, part of the functions of money is to store value, and I believe very much, a painting is a good store of money in that regard.
4. American Express credit card is not a form of money because unlike money
being used essentially, to pay for goods and services directly, a credit card is more or less, a store of wealth that is lent by the bank
Answer:
Option B
Explanation:
Applying conservatism and the historical cost principles, we would you account for the change in the value of the two pieces of land as leave the first piece of land at $100,000 and write the second down to $75,000 because conservatism and historical cost principles suggest us to anticipate and record the future losses rather than future gains.
Answer: The correct answer is True.
Explanation: This is a case of employer liability - employers are liable to their employees' act, whether it was due to the employer's intention or not, or whether the employer means to cause harm or not, provided the employees still act within the scope of their employment. The same applies if the employees had carried out good deeds within the scope of their employment, the employers share the good news - just the same way an employer profits from employee's labor, the employer is legally liable when the employee commits harm.
Employers are <em>vicariously liable</em> under doctrine of "respondeat superior" for the negligence or omissions caused by their employees during the course of their employment with the company. The doctrine of "respondeat superior" according to Law dictionary means a doctrine in tort law that makes a master liable for the wrong of a servant. There was a particular scenario I witnessed: a colleague of mine while working late at work had a visitor at the Reception and opted to see him. Unfortunately for her, an accident happended - a car broke into the office and she sustained a lot of injuries. The employer paid for all her reimbursable expenses during her treatment, paid her mum a certain amount for taking care of her, including buying her a new phone because the old one got damaged during the accident although insurance took care of some of the health bills. Because the employer knew it was binding in the court of law, she could not be forced to resume. She eventually resumed after 6 months!