1answer.
Ask question
Login Signup
Ask question
All categories
  • English
  • Mathematics
  • Social Studies
  • Business
  • History
  • Health
  • Geography
  • Biology
  • Physics
  • Chemistry
  • Computers and Technology
  • Arts
  • World Languages
  • Spanish
  • French
  • German
  • Advanced Placement (AP)
  • SAT
  • Medicine
  • Law
  • Engineering
7nadin3 [17]
2 years ago
12

Directions: Respond to the question by writing in complete sentences and using academic

Social Studies
1 answer:
Andrews [41]2 years ago
8 0

Answer and Explanation:

Factors of production are resources or inputs put into the production of goods and services. There are four factors of production. They are: land, labour, capital and entrepreneurship

Land is considered a non depreciablle factor of production. It refers to all natural resources or gifts of nature and income from it is called rent.

Labour is human capital or input in production example workers in a factory

Capital is man made goods utilized to produce other goods

Entrepreneurship/entrepreneur is the factor of production that organizes the other factors of production and carries the economic risk

From the example, the factors of production include:

The forest with all the wood which falls under land factor of production.

Bill who falls under labour factor of production

His father's chainsaw which falls under capital factor of production

Bill's idea to use logs of wood for Christmas tree business constitutes entrepreneurship and Bill is also the entrepreneur here. This falls under the entrepreneurship factor of production

You might be interested in
People who are singled out for unequal and unfair treatment and who feel a strong sense of group solidarity are called a/an
LekaFEV [45]
They are called a minority group
7 0
3 years ago
What is Nero blamed for doing
adell [148]
Nero also know as Ceaser (Nero Cladius Divi Claudius filius Caesar Augustus Germanicus), was known for killing hundreds of Christians in his time. One of them, was a fairly famous one who went by the name of Paul. The Apostle Paul. So Nero was responsible for the deaths of hundreds of Christians.

6 0
2 years ago
Plz help PLZ I’ll give you BRAILIEST
lara31 [8.8K]

Answer:

what is their convorsation

Explanation:

3 0
2 years ago
What cultural traditions emerged at the heian court?
Ad libitum [116K]
Elite buddhism moved to religion for all the common people, while the court started to share power with high-ranking samurais. The court was open to foreign visitors and merchants from the mainland were equally welcome as the court was very interested in perfumes, books and works of art.
4 0
3 years ago
How has the United Kingdom maintained an important role in world affairs
kenny6666 [7]

The UK's world role: Great Britain's greatness fixation

Editorial

Mon 25 Jan 2010 00.05 GMT First published on Mon 25 Jan 2010 00.05 GMT

Shares

3

Comments

130

In some eyes, but most notably its own, the British government will be in the driving seat of world events this week. Today, G7 finance ministers will be in London to discuss inter­national banking reform and the transaction tax, and – in the claim that the City minister, Paul Myners, makes on our comment pages today – the UK will be "leading international efforts". On Wednesday, diplomats from around the world will meet here to discuss the threat to Yemen from al-Qaida. A day later, attention shifts to another international conference in London, this time on the imperilled future of Afghanistan. Quite a week.

Every country likes to be taken seriously around the world. Lots of nations like to feel they are punching their weight, or even above it. Only a few, however, seem to feel the need to promote themselves as the one the others all look to for leadership. It is one thing – though never uncontroversial, and in some contexts increasingly implausible – for the United States to see itself in this role. As the world's largest economic and military power, the US remains even now the necessary nation in international affairs. It is quite another thing for Britain to pretend to such a status.

Advertisement

The continuing pre-eminence of American clout has been starkly shown by what has happened in banking over the last several days. Domestic political pressures spurred President Obama into declaring a war on the money men, and markets worldwide immediately trembled, as they grasped that his plan could unleash a global drive to split retail and investment banking. There should be no shame for London in wholeheartedly welcoming the initiative while admitting that Britain could never have made such a move on its own. Instead, however, the government carries on as if its own detailed plans for banks' living wills, and its distant dreams of a Tobin tax, are framing the debate.

Britain is a very important country. The sixth-largest economy in the world. The fifth-largest military power. Its claim to what the former prime minister Lord Home used to call a seat at the top table is beyond dispute, though it would be a still more influential one if we sometimes ceded it to the European Union. And yet, more than half a century after the loss of empire, our political culture still seems racked by the need to be the leading nation, not just one of them. Such delusions are most associated with the political right, but Gordon Brown can also seem peculiarly ensnared by them. His Britain must always be first, always at the forefront, must always show the way to the rest. Even in the G7, the G8 or the G20 – never mind the UN – a mere share of the action is never enough, and it must always be Britain that is leading the effort, whether in Yemen or Afghanistan. But this way hubris lies. Mr Brown immodestly let slip to MPs in 2008 that he had saved the world. And as he arrived in Copenhagen for the ill-fated climate change summit last month he announced that "There are many outstanding issues which I'm here to resolve."

In reality, of course, no single nation can resolve the world's problems alone. Only the United States and China, separately or together, can even aspire to set the agenda for the rest. If the US raises its commitment to Afghanistan then other nations are likely to follow. If the US penalises the banks, others soon fall into line.

Britain has no such potency. Yet we still struggle to adjust to our reality. We can propose, as we shall be doing in three important London meetings this week, but we cannot dispose. Every day, the descant of the Chilcot inquiry reminds us of where the refusal to recognise this truth can humiliatingly lead. Our national interest should be to play our important role as a true, trusted and committed European partner on the world stage. No longer the greatest. Just one great among others. Good enough ought to be good enough. The people get it. If only the politicians did too.


7 0
2 years ago
Other questions:
  • Devinia believes she earned an "a" in chemistry because she followed the teacher's study suggestions and worked hard all semeste
    7·1 answer
  • complete the table by recording three actions of the Intolerable acts.Then take the point of view of a colonists and how describ
    15·1 answer
  • Nationalism
    11·1 answer
  • Which of the following represents the best approach for a firm to take regarding ethics and social responsibility?a) The firm sh
    10·1 answer
  • Which of the following is true of thick-client applications?
    6·1 answer
  • Imagine that the speaker's beloved is in tears as he is leaving. why might the speaker have chosen to present his feelings in th
    11·1 answer
  • Marxism claims that social welfare agencies are really just organizations of
    6·2 answers
  • Specific example of in vitro toxicology is
    13·2 answers
  • Janeen enters the playroom of the psychology lab with her 1-year-old daughter Peggy. Initially, Peggy clings to her mother, but
    7·2 answers
  • A musk ox and the Alstroemeria flower have physical structures and organs that have similar functions. Provide two examples of s
    6·1 answer
Add answer
Login
Not registered? Fast signup
Signup
Login Signup
Ask question!