La respuesta correcta para esta pregunta abierta es la siguiente.
Yo considero que la pérdida de trabajo ocasionado por pandemia ha generado la crisis económica por la que pasan muchas familias en el Perú.
Y es que, desafortunadamente para la familia Peruana, una vez iniciada la pandemia se ordenó el confinamiento de las personas en sus casas, lo que provocó que ya no hubiera público afuera, en los lugares públicos.
Luego, el gobierno ordenó el cierre de negocios no esenciales y ahi fue cuando miles de negocios de entretenimiento, esparcimiento y recreación se fueron a la quiebra. Muchos Peruanos perdieron sus trabajos.
La crisis generada por esta pandemia y sus repercusiones en el aspecto laboral ha causado estragos en las economías de países como el Perú.
Los expertos consideran que van a pasar años antes de que todo se vuelva a regularizar en matera económica.
Answer:
njnjnjnrdgy
Explanation:
vvvhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh
Answer:
Let us assume that Jimmy Carter is an intelligent, decent, hardworking man. Assume, moreover, that he has appointed to his cabinet and sub-cabinet many men and women who are experienced and dedicated. How, then, can a president—certainly no less mentally alert than most past presidents—with many advisers of high caliber, produce such an undistinguished presidency?
It’s a puzzlement. And it cannot be accounted for by most of the explanations currently in vogue, such as: Carter’s an outsider who really doesn’t understand the levers of national governance; or Carter surrounds himself with a “Georgia Mafia” whose weaknesses are the same as his own; or Carter is a bad manager who hasn’t been able to sort out decisions that a president must make from those that should be settled at lower levels; or Congress is so uncontrollable that it will not allow any president to exercise the reins of leadership; or the bureaucracy has grown beyond the span of presidential control; or many of the nation’s problem’s are highly intractable; or even all these reasons taken together—although there is truth in all.
I would like to put forward another theory: The root of the problem is that Jimmy Carter is the first Process President in American history.
“Process President”—using a definition by Aaron Wildavsky and Jack Knott—means that Carter places “greater emphasis on methods, procedures and instruments for making policy than on the content of policy itself.”
Carter is an activist. He wants to do things. Yet his campaign statements should have warned us that save for the human rights thrust in foreign policy, his passion in government is for how things are done, rather than what should be done.
He believes that if the process is good the product will be good. In other words, if he sets up a procedure for making policy that is open, comprehensive (his favorite word), and involves good people, whatever comes out of this pipeline will be acceptable (within certain budgetary limits).
Explanation: