The economy would be in equilibrium as AE = 1000 + 0.9Y
Y = 1000 + 0.9Y
Y - 0.9Y = 1000
(1-0.9) Y = 1000
Y = 1000/0.1
Y = $10000
AE = 10,000
<h3>What does total spending actually mean?</h3>
Aggregate expenditure, a macroeconomic statistic, is used to measure and evaluate the total amount of economic activity or output within a country. A nation's total outlays over a given time period are measured by aggregate expenditure, just as the gross domestic product (GDP) and national income.
Expenditures that alter in reaction to real GDP are referred to as induced aggregate expenditures. Take consumption spending as an example of an induced aggregate expenditure, which rises with real GDP.
For more information about aggregate expenditure refer to the link:
brainly.com/question/13525490
#SPJ4
Answer: bribery and conflict of interest
Explanation: In simple words, bribery refers to the act under which one individual tries to persuade the behavior of another individual for his benefit by offering him or her monetary benefits.
Whereas, conflict of interest refers to a situation when someone has the authority to make decisions that benefits himself more than the entity he is working for.
Hence we can conclude that the above case depicts bribery and conflict of interest.
Connor has a cause of action for<u> "defamation".</u>
Defamation law is the region of law that identifies with interchanges about the notoriety of someone else. Defamatory speech is a correspondence that may hurt the reputation of another person. The reason for the zone of law is to shield individuals from having their lives and jobs demolished or fundamentally changed due to false articulations against them. Be that as it may, the law still secures an individual's First Amendment ideal to talk openly without being held at risk for saying something annoying, committing an error or contradicting another person. Defamation law is the region of law that looks to ensure an individual's notoriety by forestalling unjustifiable discourse that may hurt an individual's reputation.
Answer:
Tariffs and import quotas generally reduce economic welfare.
Explanation:
The vast majority of economists (over 90% according to the University of Chicago) agree that tariffs and import quotas generally reduce economic welfare. This is perhaps the normative statement in which economists agree the most.
The reason why is because tariffs and import quotas only benefit a small fraction of domestic producers, to the dismay of a larger number of consumers who end up having to pay higher prices for consumer goods.
