Answer:
Option (c) is correct.
Explanation:
Multiplier effect = 1 ÷ (1 - marginal propensity to consume)
= 1 ÷ (1 - 0.75)
= 4
Net exports = Exports - Imports
= 0.5 - 0.7
= (-0.2)
Impact on the equilibrium income = Net exports × Multiplier effect
= (-0.2) × 4
= (-0.8),
so, the equilibrium income will fall by $0.8 trillion.
Answer:
Weak because of proximate cause is difficult to prove in absence of other similarly affected individuals
Explanation:
Since in the question it is mentioned that the 60 year old man have a lung cancer so he sues the asbestos manufacturer also he trust that it is unsafe as her friend who use the alternative material has not have a lung cancer so here the case would be weak as of proximate cause as it is difficult for proving it
Therefore the same is to be considered
Answer:
There is low interest rate. There is minimum balance requirement problem. There is federal withdrawal limit.
Explanation:
It's definitely not the government - a government would have this power rather in a command economy, where it can decide over the distribution of the wealth.
Bartering is more typical for traditional economies.
In practice, what stops people from buying certain goods is their prize- the prize of goods makes those goods a limited resource. So I think that "prize" is the correct answer.
