Answer:
The correct answer is Allocative efficiency.
Explanation:
Although there are different evaluation standards for the concept of allocation efficiency, the basic principle states that, in any economic system, the different options in the allocation of resources will produce both "winners" and "losers" in relation to the choice being evaluated. The principles of rational choice theory, individual maximization, utilitarianism and market theory assume, in addition, that the results for both winners and losers can be identified, compared and measured.
From these basic premises, the objective of maximizing the efficiency in the allocation can be defined according to some neutral principle in which some options are considered “objectively better than others”. For example, an economist might say that a change in policy increases the efficiency of allocation, as long as those who benefit from the change (winners) earn more than the losers lose.
------
NOTE: If you need to extend the explanation given, you can make a comment or add a new question. I will be very pleased to help you.
Answer: <em>Option (A) is correct</em>
Explanation:
Here in the given case, in the context of supply change, the corporation did go wrong on part of adaptability. Adaptability is known as a feature of a process or of a system. This term has been utilized in several different discipline and organization operations. According to Gronau and Andresen, adaptability in organizational management can be referred to as ability to bring changes to oneself or something in order to fit the changes occurring.
Answer:
Miller's retained earnings on December 31, 2016 is $9,000,000.
Explanation:
Miller's retained earnings on 31 December 2016 = retained earnings on January 1, 2016 + net income - declared dividends
= $8,000,000 + $1,500,000 - $500,000
= $ 9,000,000
Therefore, Miller's retained earnings on December 31, 2016 is $9,000,000.
- Katherine had to rush to the bank every few months to borrow more money. She didn't really talk to her banker about her financial situation because she had no trouble getting larger loans. You see, she was always on time with her payments. Katherine always took trade discounts to save money on her purchases. That is, she paid all of her bills within 10 days in order to save the 2% discount offered by her suppliers for paying so quickly.
- Katherine's products were mostly purchased on credit. They'd buy a few lamps and a pot, and Katherine would let them pay overtime. Some were extremely slow to pay her, taking six months or more.
- Katherine noticed a small drop in her business after three years. The local economy was struggling, and many people were losing their jobs. Nonetheless, Katherine's business remained steady. Katherine received a phone call from the bank one day, informing her that she was behind on her payments. She explained that she had been so preoccupied that she had missed the bills. The issue was that Katherine did not have enough money to pay the bank. She frantically called several customers for payment, but none of them could pay her. Katherine had a classic cash flow problem.
<h3>How is it possible to have high sales and high profits and run out of cash while running a business?</h3>
It is entirely possible if you have a high level of accounts receivables and inventory and a low level of accounts payables. A sale is recorded when an invoice is raised, and a shipment is delivered; this does not always imply that you received cash and that it is recorded in your accounts receivable. Similarly, if you keep a lot of inventory, a lot of your money is locked up until the inventory is sold. On the contrary, if your payment terms with your suppliers are less favorable, you will end up paying before your receivables convert to cash. As a result, high sales and profits do not always imply a strong cash position.
Learn more about profit:
brainly.com/question/13050157
#SPJ4
