Answer:
Option c) how a consumer might trade off different levels of consumption of each of two goods, while staying at the same utility level.
Explanation:
This is the very definition of an indifference curve. The points in an indifference curve are the combinations of the quantities (level of consumption) of two different goods which will produce the very same utility to the consumer. The consumer will perceive any of those combinations as having the same utility for him.
For example, a usual graph of various indifference curves will look like the graph attached.
In this graph the combination of 2 pairs of shoes and 15 pants will be perceived as having the same utility as the combination of 5 pairs of shoes and 4 pants. Both are combinations in the same indifference curve, the green one, and the utility of any combination lying in that green curve will be rated the same: u = 1.
Answer:
There are no options listed, but what I can tell you for sure is that John's actions were both unethical and illegal.
What John did is unethical because it is not moral and it goes against all the principles that guide professional conduct. John also did something illegal because he was an accomplice in committing fraud against the company. He knowingly benefited from the accountant's illegal actions, and that is basically the legal definition of an accomplice to a crime.
You should consider whether you want it to be a private or public company. A private company means that should the business fall-out, you and your business partners are responsible for the cost of the lawsuit and you will have to pay out of pocket. If your business is public, meaning that people can buy shares of your stock, then you would only have to pay up to the value of the amount of stock that you own. Hope that helps!
