<u>Answer:</u>
<em>The standard of living in a country
</em>
<em></em>
<u>Explanation:</u>
The GNI and Purchasing Power determine the standards of living. The GNI estimates the present estimation of products and enterprises delivered by a nation. The PPP estimates the relative power a government needs to buy that equivalent merchandise and enterprises. In this way, GNI alludes to gainful yield, and PPP alludes to purchasing power.
Different models of "global stratification" all make them think in like manner: they rank nations as indicated by their relative financial status, or "gross national item (GNP)".
Answer:
C. hjivgjbvhmmhxtvjjcgjbchvcfvbjjcfsagkbfccfc
Answer:
$7,899,827
Explanation:
The computation of the maximum increase in money supply is shown below:
Data given in the question
Additional value in excess reserves = $868,981
Reserve ratio = 11%
By considering the above information, the maximum increase in money supply is
= Additional value in excess reserves × 100 ÷ reserve ratio
= $868,981 × 100 ÷ 11
= $868,981 × 9.09
= $7,899,827
Answer: Before Patent Expired - Monopoly Market
After Patent Expired - Perfect Competition
Explanation:
Fountain Plus had a patent on Xtrafresh, this means that they alone had legal rights to produce it and others could not produce it without their permission. This gave rise to a Monopoly as there was no competition. Fountain Fresh was able to make ECONOMIC PROFIT because they were able to charge at a price higher than both the Marginal Cost and the marginal revenue of Xtrafresh which were equal to maximize output.
When the Patent expired however and other companies could come into the trade,they started competing in the case of Xtrafresh. This competition meant that Fountain Plus could no longer keep the price at a level above Marginal cost as the other firms would simply charge lower. This led to a situation where the production of Xtrafresh and it's demand became Economically Efficient at Equilibrium. What this means is that Firms had to sell at a price determined by the market and had to make sure that this price equaled their Marginal Revenue and Marginal Cost so therefore no firm was able to make ECONOMIC PROFIT any longer.
Answer:
$0
Explanation:
Since 100% of Cooper Corporation's stock were owned by Carole and Chris (who are siblings), then no one can recognize any loss or gain from the contribution of property (nor the distribution of property). Under section 351, no gain or loss can be recognized for the contribution of property in exchange for stocks in a controlled corporation.
Since the contribution was made through a carryover basis transaction less than 5 years before the liquidation, the distribution is carried out in the same way.
