Answer:
<h3>I think this might help you</h3><h3>
Explanation:</h3><h3 />
<h3>With the flu season swiftly approaching and the H1N1 already affecting large numbers across the world, New Hampshire faces the possibility of a flu epidemic. In such an instance, what action would the state or federal government take? The possibility of a massive quarantine gets thrown around every time a flu epidemic exists, but is such an action an infringement of the rights of individuals living in a free nation? Or is the common good of preventing the spread of infection more important?
</h3><h3>
</h3><h3>Even the current health care debate reflects the tension between individual rights and the common good. Over the past months New Hampshire town halls have been crowded with individuals taking a side in the individual rights/common good debate. Some have expressed the view that health care initiatives are in the interest of a healthier state and nation. Others claim that compulsory health insurance impedes individuals’ right to the best health care money can buy. Can the individual rights vs. common good debate help us understand some of the ideological tension behind the current health care discussion?
</h3><h3>
</h3><h3>As many of these examples show, this month’s question is largely political, but it can also flow into other areas of thought. There’s the philosophical and moral question of the Donner Party; if you and five others were stranded and starving, and your only hope of getting out alive is to eat the first member who passed away, would you do it to save the rest of the group? There is the question that comes up around the disabled. Do you build special infrastructure to accommodate the few who are disabled even if that meant the cost to do this would jack up prices. Then there is the commercial/environmental side. What is more important, buying a cheaper car that fits your personal budget and your personal tastes or a more expensive and efficient auto that would help save the environment? What do you think?
</h3>
The correct answer is - B. consumers/producers.
Within an economy, of any type, there's an exchange of goods and services between the producers and consumers. In order for something to get on the market someone has to produce it or provide it, be it a good or a service, and that good or service is used by someone, thus the consumers.
While the producers make certain thing, the consumers buy it or exchange it. Depending on the type of economy, it can be money in exchange for a good or service (which is the dominant type by far), or it can be a good for good, or a service for service, which has been a dominant type in the past, but not anymore.
Answer:
Traditional economy
Explanation:
The type of economy are the basic economic questions, "what goods to produce and how to produce them decided based on customs passed down from previous generations" is known as Traditional economy.
Traditional economy is an economic system in which traditions, customs, and beliefs help formulate the products and services that are produced by the economy, as well as the rules and manner of their distribution. Rural and farm based countries tend to use this kind of economic systems.
The answer is c. never a good idea and should always be avoided.
The Quapaw Indians were a tribe of Native Americans that lived in what is now the modern-day Ohio Valley and Midwest, but later moved to what is now Arkansas. There is still a community of Quapaw Indians who are recognized by the government of the United States and host cultural events throughout the year. Most are now farmers and have mixed ancestry with French settlers.
