<u>The reason that Pablo Picasso, become wealthy during his lifetime and the artist, Vincent van Gogh, remain poor his entire life:</u>
Pablo Picasso and Vincent van Gogh had more features in common. They had unanimously indistinct style of arts which had become immediately identifiable.
In spite of all that, Picasso died as a rich man owning an estate which is estimated at nearly 750 million dollar whereas Van Gogh died as a pauper.
Studies claim that the reason behind this would be that, Van Gogh remained to be a loner and socially inactive. He was depending on his brother to meet the social world and in contrast Picasso was a charismatic active member in various social clubs where her had multiple number of contacts and connections.
It's been said that Pablo Picasso was a hub who had a vast network of social lines and Vincent Van Gogh was a silent or solitary node.
But now, the paintings of both the greatest artists were well spoken and sell for more than 100,000,000 US Dollars.
Answer:
d. Strategy implementation.
Explanation:
Strategic implementation is the process of putting the strategy into action.
After strategic planning, which is the definition of the action plans necessary for a company to achieve the defined objectives and goals, it is the phase of strategic implementation, which is the process of executing the plans defined in the planning stage.
Therefore, when implementing the strategy in an organization, it is necessary that the action plans are constantly monitored, so that the managers can have knowledge of the performance of the designed strategy, to prevent failures, correct some essential factor for the effectiveness of the action plans, monitor the internal and external environment, monitor the performance of employees, etc., in order to seek continuous improvement of the company's strategic action processes to achieve the expected objectives.
Answer:
The correct answer is $3
Explanation:
Cost per equivalent unit = Total costs / EUP for materials = ($50000+ $10000) / 20000 = $3
Answer:
Macmillana's GDP is less sensitive economic fluctuations than Bloedelo's GDP. Two reasons account for this:
1) The keynesian multiplier is smaller.
The keynesian multiplier tells us about the sensitivity of GDP to increases in domestic expenditure (consumption, investment or government purchases). If the keynesian multiplier is small, then, GDP will be less sensitive to fluctuations in aggregate expenditure.
2) Macmillana's economy has implemented automatic stabilizers, while Bloedelo's economy has not.
Automatic Stabilizers are government policies meant to reduce fluctuations in GDP. The two most common automatic stabilizers are: income taxes and unemployment benefits.
Automatic Stabilizers reduce the kenyensian multiplier, dampening Macmillana's GDP sensitivity to fluctuations even more.
Answer:
A. the economy is producing at less than its potential output and has some cyclical unemployment.
Explanation:
Increase in government spending will increase domestic income, only if economy is producing at less than its potential output.
Increase in federal government spending raises the level of 'govt expenditure' in Aggregate Demand. This creates 'Excess Demand' (AD > AS). However, if the economy is at full employment level, i.e all the resources are already best efficiently utilised as per their production potential. Then, the economy can't increase its domestic income more than its full employment (full potential) level. So : Increase in government spending in full employment case, wont increase total production/ income/ employment further ; as the economy is already at full employment & can't increase economic activity beyond that.
