Answer and Explanation:
a. The Journal entries are shown below:-
Investment - Capital stock Dr, $51.5 million
To Cash $51.5 million
(Being investment is recorded)
Unrealized holding gain or loss Dr, $15.5 million ($51.5 - $36.0)
To Fair value adjustment $15.5 million
(Being fair value adjustment is recorded)
b. Unrealized holding gain or loss Dr, $5.5 million ($51.5 - $30.5 - $15.5)
To Fair value adjustment $5.5 million
(Being fair value adjustment before sale is recorded)
Cash Dr, $30.5 million
Unrealized holding gain or loss Dr, $21 million
To Investment - Capital stock $51.5 million
(Being sale of investment is recorded)
Answer:
The correct answer is D
Explanation:
Disparate treatment is the treatment which differing conduct or performed toward the individuals, where the differences are grounded on the individual age, colour, national origin, race, disability or religion status.
This treatment would be legal if the discrimination would be BFOQ (termed as bona fide occupational qualification), the courts must have held that in few situations that the factor like sex or religion might be BFOQ, which is important qualification for performing a job.
Answer:
So then as we can see if the demand is constant the first sold would be the correct answer for this case. Because assuming the demand constant and we have more than 1 supplier with the same price the first one would sold the good or service on this case the house.
Explanation:
The law of demand and supply "is an inverse relationship between the supply and prices of goods and services when demand is unchanged. If there is an increase in supply for goods and services while demand remains the same, prices tend to fall to a lower equilibrium price and a higher equilibrium quantity of goods and services".
So then as we can see if the demand is constant the first sold would be the correct answer for this case. Because assuming the demand constant and we have more than 1 supplier with the same price the first one would sold the good or service on this case the house.
Answer:
15%
Explanation:
The formula and the calculation of the price elasticity of supply are presented below:
Price elasticity of supply = (Percentage change in quantity supplied ÷ percentage change in price)
where,
Price elasticity of supply = 2
And, the percentage change in quantity supplied is 30%
So, the percentage change in price is
= 30% ÷ 2
= 15%
Explanation:
Let’s explore one by one as proposed:
An oil cartel raises oil prices: all prices in the oil-related products will increase making it more expensive for companies to be able to afford employees. As the US economy is heavily based on oil import and consumption, the unemployment rate (let´s call it UR from now on) would increase. Countries that export more than import could benefit from this scenario.
The U.S. dollar gains value against foreign currencies: It would be more expensive to produce goods in the US as its currency becomes stronger. Hence companies could choose to produce overseas, increasing the UR. One of the factors that attract investments is a cheap currency, meaning that a company could operate there at lower costs than anywhere else.
American consumers expect higher income in the future: As fights about average salary would arise between employees and companies, igniting even sindicalization, its proper to think that the same as above could occur; companies could choose to produce overseas in countries less demanding of labor rights and income, such as China provinces (I would recommend for you to watch American Factory, a awarded Netflix documentary about that subject).
Brazil experiences economic growth and increases its demand for U.S. exports: as I said in the first alternative, a country that has increased or more expensive exports could benefit from that creating more jobs, in this case decreasing the UR. If Brazil demands more US products, more has to be produced by the country, which would mean more people employed in this attractive sector.
U.S. real estate values rise: to be honest, it only affects indirectly. As housing becomes more expensive, people have to work more to be able to afford housing. That would mean they seeking better-paying jobs or in the absence of those being homeless of at least unable to buy a home. We could argue that the UR would decrease because it becomes more expensive to afford housing and hence people would migrate more but that’s a long shot rationale.
