Suppose both john and bill can do two tasks in a day. if john can do each of the two tasks faster than bill, then <u>John should specialize in performing the task for which he has a </u><u>comparative advantage</u><u>. </u>
Comparative advantage refers to the capacity to provide goods and offerings at a lower possibility price, not always at a greater quantity or satisfactory. Comparative gain is a key perception that trade will still occur even though one u . s . has an absolute gain in all products.
In an economic model, retailers have a comparative advantage over others in producing a selected desirable if they can produce that excellent at a lower relative opportunity price or autarky rate, i.e. at a decrease relative marginal price previous to trade.
In economics, a comparative advantage occurs when a country can produce a very good or carrier at a lower opportunity value than another u . s .. The principle of comparative gain is attributed to political economist David Ricardo, who wrote the book standards of Political economic system and Taxation (1817).
<u />
Learn more about comparative advantage here brainly.com/question/14846093
#SPJ4
A is correct. Women's clothing and style changed dramatically during the 1920's, doing away with corsets and long hair, and allowing women to be more "free".
A parent who scores higher on the kidi would be most likely to provide responsive baby care, as well as be least depressed.
<span>According to Malcolm X, the person who was left of the March of Washington was the rioting black folks. </span><span>According to Malcolm X, the
need for cultural assimilation had weakened the structure of the movement by making
the March more casual, rather than a spur
for change</span>
One particular organization that fought for racial equality was the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) founded in 1909. For about the first 20 years of its existence, it tried to persuade Congress and other legislative bodies to enact laws that would protect African Americans from lynchings and other racist actions. Beginning in the 1930s, though, the NAACP's Legal Defense and Education Fund began to turn to the courts to try to make progress in overcoming legally sanctioned discrimination. From 1935 to 1938, the legal arm of the NAACP was headed by Charles Hamilton Houston. Houston, together with Thurgood Marshall, devised a strategy to attack Jim Crow laws by striking at them where they were perhaps weakest—in the field of education. Although Marshall played a crucial role in all of the cases listed below, Houston was the head of the NAACP Legal Defense and Education Fund while Murray v. Maryland and Missouri ex rel Gaines v. Canada were decided. After Houston returned to private practice in 1938, Marshall became head of the Fund and used it to argue the cases of Sweat v. Painter and McLaurin v. Oklahoma Board of Regents of Higher Education.
