All categories

3 years ago

A breakdown of the four components of GDP shows that

Business

1 answer:

scoray [572]3 years ago

5 0

Answer:

The answer is: C. Consumption is by far the largest expenditure category, and that consumer spending on services far exceeds consumer spending on goods.

Explanation:

In the US Economy, consumption is by far the largest component of the GDP. Also, in the US economy, the most stable and largest component of consumption is services.

Consumption is calculated by adding all the new, finished, legal, durable and non-durable products and services expenditures.

During 2017, the GDP of the USA was $19.52 billion.
Approximately 68.4% of the GDP was Household Consumption.
Out of the total GDP, 80.2% were services.

You might be interested in

Drewson Health Foods has 16 comma 000 shares of $ 1 par common stock outstanding, which were issued at $ 15 per share. Drewson

earnstyle [38]

Answer:

SE 157,000

Explanation:

We do shares outstanding times issued per share to get the total paid-in capital. Then subtract the retained earnigns negative balance to get the Drewson total stockholders equity

$16,000 \times 15 = 240,000 \\Retained \: Earnings \: (83,000) \\Stockholders \: Equity \: 157,000$

7 0

3 years ago

Ingvar Kamprad’s influence over IKEA may have even been stronger than that of Sam Walton over Walmart because IKEA is a privatel

julia-pushkina [17]

Answer:

There are similarities in the way businesses are run, but the management and influencing capacity on both are completely different.

Though during the founding days both the organizations, IKEA and Walmart operated under direct influence of the founders.

Also, power and responsibility is more shared, though there would be some adaptation and conflict changes that is expected, but it is differently structured than Walmart and would not suffer much.

Explanation:

Solution:

Now,

There are similarities in the way businesses are run, but the management and influencing capacity on both are completely different.

Though during the founding days both the organizations, IKEA and Walmart operated under direct influence of the founders.

Where as Walmart still had a lot of key decisions directly made through the founders,

Key global expansion

Key local management

Everything was micro managed from the HQ through Sam.

But after the few years of success, the model of IKEA remained same but they went to several countries and became more regional.

Global decisions were made from The HQ under the direct supervision of Ingvar But all the key regional war was given to a CEO, who had all the decisions to make.

This way there was a lot of power sharing and responsibility distributed. In case of any problem, HQ has interruptions to make it correct.

This implies power and responsibility is more shared, though there would be some issues and adaptation changes that is expected, but it is differently structured than Walmart and would not suffer that much.

Therefore, No the effect would not be similar to that of Walmart leadership transition.

7 0

3 years ago

with this type of externality, in the absence of government intervention, the market equilibrium quantity produced will be than

ikadub [295]

The type of externality where market equilibrium quantity produced will be more than socially optimal quantity in absence of governemtn intervention is Negative externality.

Let understand that whenever a production of good or service negatively affect the unrelated third party who is not directly involved in a market transaction, it is said that negative externality exists in the scenario.

A very good example of commonly cited Negative Externalities are air pollution and noise pollution which was caused during production an affects unrelated third party.

If there is presence of government intervention in the production, then, the production of goods or service will be halted.

Therefore, in conclusion, this type of externality is called the Negative Externality.

Read more about Negative Externality here

<em>brainly.com/question/13901028</em>

7 0

2 years ago

Bond J has a coupon of 7.6 percent. Bond K has a coupon of 11.6 percent. Both bonds have 12 years to maturity and have a YTM of

elena55 [62]

Answer:

Bond J has a coupon of 7.6%

Bond K has a coupon of 11.6%

12 years to maturity and YTM of 8.2%

first we must determine the current market price of both bonds using the yield to maturity formula:

YTM = {C + [(FV - PV) / n]} / [(FV + PV) / 2]

YTM = 8.2%
C = coupon payment = $76 and $116
FV = face value or value at maturity = $1,000
PV = present value or current market value = ???
n = 12 years

current market value of Bond J:

0.082 = {76 + [(1,000 - PV) / 12]} / [(1,000 + PV) / 2]

[(1,000 + PV) / 2] x 0.082 = 76 + [(1,000 - PV) / 12]

41 + 0.041PV = 76 + 83.33 - 0.083PV

0.124PV = 118.33

PV = 118.33 / 0.124 = $954.27

current market value of Bond K:

41 + 0.041PV = 116 + 83.33 - 0.083PV

0.124PV = 158.33

PV = 158.33 / 0.124 = $1,276.85

a. If interest rates suddenly rise by 2.2 percent, what is the percentage price change of these bonds?

YTM = {C + [(FV - PV) / n]} / [(FV + PV) / 2]

YTM = 8.2% + 2.2% = 10.4%
C = coupon payment = $76 and $116
FV = face value or value at maturity = $1,000
PV = present value or current market value = ???
n = 12 years

market value of Bond J:

0.102 = {76 + [(1,000 - PV) / 12]} / [(1,000 + PV) / 2]

[(1,000 + PV) / 2] x 0.102 = 76 + [(1,000 - PV) / 12]

102 + 0.051PV = 76 + 83.33 - 0.083PV

0.134PV = 157.33

PV = 57.33 / 0.134 = $427.84

market value of Bond K:

102 + 0.051PV = 116 + 83.33 - 0.083PV

0.134PV = 97.33

PV = 97.33 / 0.134 = $726.34

Bond J's market price will decrease by ($427.84 - $954.27) / $954.27 = -55.17%

Bond K's market price will decrease by ($726.34 - $1,276.85) / $1,276.85 = -43.11%

b. If interest rates suddenly fall by 2.2 percent, what is the percentage price change of these bonds?

YTM = {C + [(FV - PV) / n]} / [(FV + PV) / 2]

YTM = 6%
C = coupon payment = $76 and $116
FV = face value or value at maturity = $1,000
PV = present value or current market value = ???
n = 12 years

current market value of Bond J:

0.06 = {76 + [(1,000 - PV) / 12]} / [(1,000 + PV) / 2]

[(1,000 + PV) / 2] x 0.06 = 76 + [(1,000 - PV) / 12]

30 + 0.030PV = 76 + 83.33 - 0.083PV

0.113PV = 129.33

PV = 129.33 / 0.113 = $1,144.51

current market value of Bond K:

30 + 0.030PV = 116 + 83.33 - 0.083PV

0.113PV = 169.33

PV = 169.33 / 0.113 = $1,498.50

Bond J's market price will increase by ($1,144.51 - $954.27) / $954.27 = 19.94%

Bond K's market price will increase by ($1,498.50 - $1,276.85) / $1,276.85 = 17.36%

8 0

3 years ago

Alternative A would involve substantial fixed but relatively low variable costs: fixed costs would be $250,000 per year, and var

stepladder [879]

Answer:

From zero to 33 boats option B would be best

Explanation:

Assuming the first alternative (A)is 250,000 fixed and 500 per boat

second (B) 2,500 cost per boat

and third (C) 50,000 fixed and 1,000 cost per boat

We want' to know at which level B would be the best option

we want to know when alternative C or A have a cost of 2,500 or lower:

$500 + \frac{250,000}{Q} = 2,500$

$\frac{250,000}{2,500 - 500} = Q$

Q = 125

From this point, as fixed cost will be distribute among more units, the cost will decrease meaking C better than B

$1,000 + \frac{50,000}{Q} = 2,500$

$\frac{50,000}{2,500 - 1,000} = Q$

Q = 33.33

From this point, as fixed cost will be distribute among more units, the cost will decrease meaking A better than B

From zero to 33 boats option B would be the best of the three options

6 0

3 years ago