The existence of periodic overproduction crisis is a main characteristic of the market economy system.
In general, the more than an economy can produce, the better as the GDP (Gross Domestic Product) figures increase, there is economic growth and high income and employment figures .
But if an excessive quantity of production is offered in the markets in relation to the amounts demanded, there will be situations of excess supply. If such situations cannot be balanced, a big crisis arises, as producers will have large unsold stocks, factories with an enormous capacity if compared to the amount they can sell according to the demand, and much more workers than they need.
In this situation many plants have to close down, workers are fired and sometimes even the whole business goes bankrupt.
The contradiction happens because high production figures are not leading to economic growth or recording positive figures. Alternatively, an overproduction crisis takes place with the very negative consequences described above.
Answer:
A multi-party system is a political system in which multiple political parties across the political spectrum run for national elections, and all have the capacity to gain control of government offices, separately or in coalition.
Explanation:
Answer:
Amendment # 6 which is 'Right to a Speedy and Public Trial
'
Explanation:
Here, the action taken by the police is unconstitutional to say the least. The Amendment relevant to this scenario is Amendment # 6 which is 'Right to a Speedy and Public Trial'. Also, the specific text that can be used to dispute or to counter this action under Amendment # 6 is: “In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense”. In this scenario, Jackie was not informed regarding the accusation for which she was being charged and arrested nor she was provided with the means or assistance to request a lawyer.
None of these conclusions is valid.
- The first one implies that people either think that their employer should cover part of the health insurance costs (as said in the original sentence), or they think that the employer should pay 100%. This is not correct because there are other possible opinions people can have, like thinking that the employer shouldn't pay for anything, for example.
- The second conclusion is invalid for the same reason: it implies that people can only either think that the employer should pay a large part, or that the employer shouldn't pay anything. It is not considering other options.
- The third conclusion does not work either because it is referring to what people think about <em>the amount </em>of the costs themselves, whereas the original topic was <em>how</em> they are paid for.
