Answer:
b) the method to reduce costs of producing automobile glass, but not the formula for the substance that prevents smudging.
Explanation:
As provided, the professor develops a way which shall reduce the cost of producing the automobile glass, which apparently is very easy for anyone to copy and use.
Whereas, when a company develops the formula which creates a substance that prevents the automobile glass from getting smudged is again a technological knowledge although not that common.
Since the first one is apparently easy and other is patented which means both are common else not so common idea will not need patent as people would not be able to create such formula.
Answer:$4,500---B, ie the 2nd option
Explanation:
From April to December we have 9 months
Interest Expense is given as Loan x Interest Rate x duration
Interest Expense = 50000 x 12% x 9/12 =
50,000x 0.12x9/12= $4,500
Answer: No, johnson & johnson should not double its production capacity of their purell hand sanitizer.
Explanation: An increase in demand of hand sanitizers due to the H1N1 flue will shift the demand curve for hand sanitizers to the right. The price of hand sanitizers will increase meaning that greater production levels are profitable. The firms can take advantage of this profitability by increasing manufacturing capacity. However, capacity will be increased for many years and the H1N1 flu is a temporary phenomenon. So, once the H1N1 flu is controlled demand for hand sanitizer is likely to return to previous levels. As a result the increased capacity will then remain idle and unprofitable. So, johnson & johnson should not double its production capacity of their purell hand sanitizer.
Answer:
A.
Explanation:
Based on the information provided within the question it can be said that another great department to rotate to would be customer service, so that they can learn how the chemicals are implemented and used by the customer. Doing so would allow them to understand why the customers use them and what kind of implementations would be useful for the customers, which would in term generate more profits.
M1 money growth in the US was about 16% in 2008, 7% in 2009 and 9% in 2010. Over the same time period, the yield on 3-month Treasury bills fell from almost 3% to close to 0%. Given these high rates of money growth, why did interest rates fall, rather than increase? What does this say about the income, price level and expected-inflation effects?
Higher money growth (increase in the money supply) should have the following effects:
Liquidity effect indicates that this growth in money should shift money supply to the right, which should decrease the interest rate.
Income effect indicates that the growth in money should increase income levels, which should increase the demand for money and shift the demand curve to the right. This should increase the interest rate.
The price level effect indicates that the growth in money should increase price levels, which should increase the demand for money and shift the demand curve to the right. This should also increase the interest rate.
During this time period, unemployment was high, economic growth was weak and policymakers were more concerned with deflation than they were with inflation.
Therefore, the expected inflation effect was almost non-existent (due to the concerns with deflation) and the liquidity effect dominated all other effects, which made interest rates fall.
<span>This is illustrated with the first graph on slide 32 of the Theory of Money Powerpoints.</span>
