The second alternative is correct.
In a market economy, where there is free entry and exit of firms, price is determined by the supply and demand of goods and services. In this case, the government does not act directly as a market player, but as a regulator, which must maintain the proper environment for companies to develop and compete the market through competition, ie price. Thus, consumers benefit. The government takes some economic decisions to favor the economic environment, for example to ensure that there is no agreement, but production decisions are only up to the companies, without intervention.
Scarcity is considered an economics problem with human wants or desires with limited resources, since we have limited resources not everyone can have what they want.
The answer to your question has to be B
Answer:
judicial activism
Explanation:
Based on the information provided within the question it can be said that in this scenario this decision is an example of judicial activism. This term refers to a court ruling that is suspected of having been made on the basis of a personal opinion as opposed to an actual existing law. Such as in this case since the court made a ruling on something that is not not explicitly mentioned in the Constitution.
South West and great plains
