Answer:
The correct answer to the following question will be "Opportunity".
Explanation:
- A market opportunity to sell or contract any commodity, facility, facilities, etc. that will allow the buyer-licensee to set up a business.
- The licensor of a marketing opportunity usually announces that he or she will protect or support the purchaser in finding a suitable destination or deliver the commodity to the cardholder-licensee.
Therefore, Opportunity is the right answer.
You’d like to borrow money because it will fund for whatever you want to purchase or fund, but you’ll have to give it back and depending on interest it would be more expensive.
Answer:
$180 billion
Explanation:
The consumption is an act of spending the money from an income. The marginal propensity to consume is the proportion increase in the amount that a consumer is spending. The savings then decline if the consumption increases. In the given scenario the consumption will not raise even if there is an increase in national income and taxes are kept fixed at previous level. This is because marginal propensity to consume is same.
Answer:
Three part test.
The outcome: if the three requirements are not met, then there is not point the Government should interfere.
At the end, the law will be held.
Explanation:
In some cases, the courts are allowed to protect individual, company or business organization from Government interrupting with these individuals or business organization "fundamental right" and this is the "substantive due process rights " of insurance companies as mentioned in the question above.
The test that the United State Supreme Court can use to determine whether the regulations they want to enact would violate the substantive due process rights of insurance companies is what is known as the THREE PARR TEST.
THE THREE PART TEST has its root from cases such as that of Pasgraf V Long Island Railroad co. The three part test involves three main subjects and they are;
=> foreseeability: are the policies in which insurance companies work going to affect the consumers in the future?
=> proximity: what kind of relationship do the insurance companies have with there consumers?
=> fairness: are these policies just and fair?
CONCLUSION: if the three requirements are not met, then there is not point the Government should interfere.
In the given scenario, Rembrandt Cosmetics accomplished its substitution primarily through strategic planning of equivalence.
<h3>What is strategic planning?</h3>
When the differences between two different strategic plans are identical, with other things being constant, such a situation is called as a strategic planning of equivalence.
Hence, strategic planning holds true regarding the given situation.
Learn more about strategic planning here:
brainly.com/question/16699515
#SPJ1
