Answer: Positive, Normative
Explanation: Positive economics is based on facts and objects that can be verified. While, normative economics is based on value based judgement that are difficult to verify.
Making a prediction today about the world's population in twenty years <em>based on current growth trends</em> is an example of <em>positive economics</em>.
<em>Advising</em> the residents of a town to choose a toll road over a freeway extension due to a limited budget and high trucking usage is an example of <em>normative economics</em>.
Yvonne’s job involves of ticketing and marking. This is
where products are being labeled with identification or that price tags were
being assigned to each products for consumers to have the knowledge about the
product in which Yvonne’s job is involved to.
Answer:
c. not affect the bond's duration.
Explanation:
The bond duration measures the sensitivity of a bond's price to change in the interest rate. It is a linear measure of those years in which the repayment of the principal is due. the change in interest rate does not affect the duration of the bond.
On the other hand decrease in interest rate would increase the bond's PV and Price of the bond as well.
Payment frequency would not change with the decrease interest rate.
The Coupon rate will also remain the same whether the interest rate increases or decreases.
Answer:
166.25 hours
Explanation:
It take 25 hours if the production is going at 100% capacity, but the production is only going at 67%, therefore, 33% of the capacity is under utilized. It takes 8.25 more hours to finish the unit since the capacity is only at 67%. Finally, it takes 25+8.25 hours to finish a single product, hence taking 166.25 hours for 5 units.
We do this like this:
--> 25 ------ 100
--> X ------ 33
--> 33*25 = 100*X
--> 825/100
--> X=8.25
Hope this clears everything. Thankyou.
Answer: C. The court concluded that Microsoft violated the Sherman Act
Explanation: The case between United States v. Microsoft Corporation which took place at the
United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit during the period February 26–27, 2001 and was finally decided June 28, 2001.
It was decided by the District Court that Microsoft violated the Sharma Antitrust Act of 1890.