Answer:
The correct option is B,zero monetary cost but a $1,000 per month opportunity cost
Explanation:
Monetary cost also known as explicit cost is the actual costs incurred in running a business.But the business in this case is renting of the property,frankly speaking, Jeane has not incurred any cost in her property business,hence monetary cost is zero.
Opportunity is the cost or benefits from alternative course of action. Jeane not renting out the property on commercial basis is the alternative course of action in this case.Since the commercial letting gives $1500 and the letting to her brother gives $500, the difference between the two rents is $1000 which is benefits forgone from letting the house to her brother,that is the opportunity cost.
The answer here is ‘aging’.
I hope this can help.
In Gibbons v. Ogden, the Supreme Court ruled that rail companies D. states could not restrict trade within their jurisdictions.
Under the constitution, rail companies have the electricity to make all laws that shall be vital and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers. Aaron Ogden was given permission to function his steamboats in the big apple. Thomas Gibbons changed and allowed to function his steamboats in the big apple.
The ruling in Gibbons v. Ogden asserted Congress's authority to adjust interstate trade on the idea of the Supremacy Clause. It set a precedent that Congress had the strength to overturn country rules if interstate commerce were worried.
The case introduced mild the problem of the trade Clause of the united states charter. It changed into a question of whether or not Congress ought to adjust positive factors of trade. It averted states from establishing similar monopolistic rail companies' legal guidelines, encouraging an increase in steamboat journey and cargo delivery. This increased change opportunities between states, boosting states' economies.
Learn more about rail companies here:-brainly.com/question/11433327
#SPJ4
The available options are the following:
-Board members serve on multiple boards
-People with knowledge of the firm's history are replaced with those who may not know as much information
-Less frequent board meetings
-Better decisions about important issues
Answer:
-People with knowledge of the firm's history are replaced with those who may not know as much information
Explanation:
Considering the available options, the option that appears negative and related to the point being discussed is
"People with knowledge of the firm's history are replaced with those who may not know as much information."
It is straightforward, as changing the board of directors will at some point lead to a time where the new member in the board of directors will just be a competent worker but has no history with the company.
