Economic arbitrage occurs when businesses from wealthy nations trade with businesses from poor nations.
- In order to profit from a price differential, an investor will use the investment method of arbitrage to simultaneously buy and sell an asset in other marketplaces. The returns can be impressive when multiplied by a high volume, despite the fact that pricing variations are often tiny and transient.
- As an illustration, the stock of a phone firm trades on the NYSE for $25. It trades for $25.50 in the Shanghai Stock Exchange at the same time. The arbitrageur purchases the stock from the NYSE and sells it right away on the Shanghai market for a 50 cent profit.
To know more about arbitrage, kindly click on the link below :
brainly.com/question/14676030?referrer=searchResults
#SPJ4
Answer:
In the shooting scene, you'd be able to collect the shell of the bullet and that would be one step to find out what type of gun the perpetrator used. You could go through nearby stores and look through their CCTV camera and find out what kind of car it was and maybe even catch a glimpse of the perpetrators face. However if the shooting was in a residential area you could go door to door looking for witnesses. To see if anybody heard or saw anything.
Answer:
True.
Explanation:
The 14th Amendment is an amendment to the constitution of the United States of America and it addresses the issue of civil and legal rights for the African American citizens and slaves who had gained freedom after the American Civil War. The 14th Amendment is made up of the clause known as the equal protection of the laws.
An equal protection is a clause that states and guarantees that no state and local governments shall make or enforce any law which would contravene the privileges, rights or immunities of all persons born or naturalized in the United States of America.
Simply stated, the equal protection guarantees that all citizens will be treated equally by the law. Also, the equal protection clause took effect in the United States of America in 1868.
Answer:
In Griffin v. California, the U.S. Supreme Court rules that the Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination not only allows a criminal defendant to refuse to take the witness stand during his trial, but it also bars the prosecutor from urging the jury to interpret that silence as an indication that the defendant has something to hide. The Court reasons that the right against self-incrimination would be meaningless if a defendant’s exercise of the right could be used against him.
Hope this helps
