<h2>Establish a business environment that promotes and rewards is the choice which the Prime Minister likely to choose.</h2>
Explanation:
The motto here is to increase the wealth of the country.
Option 1: Invading other countries is unethical and also, it cannot assure that, Cantlivia will improve. The reason is the country which the option says is poorer than Cantlivia, so point of growth could be seen.
Option 2: Already the country economy is down, so purchasing new tools is not possible hence this option is invalid.
Option 3: We can increase wealth only by creating business and creating entrepreneurs. So this is the right choice.
Option 4: Creating a barrier will actually slow down wealth. So this option is not right.
Answer: a. $120,000
b. $6,000
c. Yes
Explanation:
a. It is said that the collection centres would help reduce the collection time by 2 days and that every day $60,000 comes in.
If the proposal will reduce the amount of time taken to collect by 2 days then that means that the amount freed up is the amount that they would have collected in two days had it not been for the system.
That amount would be,
= $60,000 * 2
= $120,000
b. If they used this free up cash to pay off a debt that was accumulating 5% per year then the 5% will be saved.
The amount saved therefore is,
= 120,000 * 5%
= $6,000
By retiring a $120,000 that was accruing $6,000 a year, the proposal has enabled that $6,000 to be saved instead.
c. The cost of implementing this proposal is $5,200 per year and yet the savings it gives in interest is $6,000.
As the savings are higher than the cost, the number definitely suggest that the project should be implemented because it is more beneficial than it costs.
It is important to Learn, and Write down Results/Notes.
Answer:
The answer is NO.
Explanation:
The answer is NO since the tax cut does not equate or rather would not be an effective stimulus due to the fact that debt reduction would not stimulate or increase consumption.
To properly understand the narrative of the question and the answer herein, let us define what effective stimulus is.
Effective stimulus or as preferably known as An economic stimulus is the utilization of funds or design of that helps agitate growth during downtime or recession in a country. The decision makers of a country mostly utilize the tactics of giving rebates and increasing government expenses to name a few.
Now relating it back to the question, since the intention of the rebate is to ease payment on tax does not equate to increase in consumption, the answer is a NO.
Answer:
89.63% of 2nd month payment will go towards the payment of principal.
Explanation:
Loan Payament per month = r ( PV ) / 1 - ( 1 + r )^-n
r = rate per period = 12% per year = 1% per month
n = number months = 12 months
PV = present value of all payments = $82,500
P = payment per month = ?
P = 1% ( $82,500 ) / 1 - ( 1 + 1% )^-12
P = $7,330 per month
Month Payments Principal Interest Balance
1 -7330 -6505 -825 75995
2 -7330 -6570 -760 69,425
Percentage of Principal Payment = Principal payment / totla monthly payment = $6,570 / $7,330 = 0.8963 = 89.63%
