Structural Realism
Explanation:
International politics is basically a struggle for power, but they don't always endorse the conventional logical view that this is a human psychology outcome. The lack of an overall authority over countries and relative power sharing in the international system refer defense rivalry and intergovernmental disputes to them.
Structural realism maintains that its theory of chaos and capability allocation (measured for the number of large competences within the international system) determine the essence of the international framework. The international system has a dynamic anarchically organising theory, which ensures that there is no hierarchical central authority.
Awnser would be D for plato
Answer: Bonds are generally a safer, or less risky, investment than are stocks
Explanation: The biggest pro of investing in stocks over bonds is that history shows, stocks tend to earn more than bonds - especially long term. Additionally, stocks can offer better returns if the company growth is exponential, earning the investor potentially millions on an originally minuscule investment.
Many investors are under the impression that bonds are automatically safer than stocks. After all, bonds pay investors a regular fixed income, and their prices are much less volatile than those of stocks. Conversely, a stock is low-risk for the issuing company, but it's high-risk for investors.
Answer:
small business
Explanation:
According to my research on the different types of companies, I can say that based on the information provided within the question Vernon's company can be categorized as a small business. A small business refers to any company that is independently owned and has only a small number of employees and resources in comparison with the industry that it is currently in. Since Vernon business is run from his house and he only has 55 employees, he would be classified as a small business.
I hope this answered your question. If you have any more questions feel free to ask away at Brainly.
Answer:
(2) salaries for officials
Explanation:
Salaries for officials would be the most appropriate area to cut, because the other three items are either more important, or would cause unintented effects if cut.
Some government agencies could even be closed, or its personnel reduced, in case the economic crisis is serious.
As for the other three items, cutting education would not make sense because the IMF itself recommends large spending in education since an educated populace is highly correlated with economic development.
Cutting food subsidies would be problematic in a country that is going through an economic crisis, and could result in hunger among the poor.
Finally, cutting tax rebates for exporters would probably cause export earnings to dwindle even more because exporters would have less incentive to engage in that activity, and many of them would likely change their occupation.
