<span>Political stability is not a barrier to economic development, so the correct answer is B. If something is stable, it means that it is in a good condition, and if it's in a good condition, it cannot be bad or preventing good things from happening. So B is a good thing, and cannot be a barrier to anything. Debts, diseases, and low levels of social welfare can be barriers, because they are indicators of bad conditions in a country. </span>
The answer to your question is c
Jill was a donkey when it came to school
There are good arguments on both sides as to when and how fast to reopen the economy. In my view, the answer will vary state by state and industry by industry. There’s also an enormous amount of uncertainty as to exactly how to determine the optimal policy. In that environment, there’s a great advantage to having these decisions be made at as local a level as possible. Thus, while I suspect that Sweden’s current policy is not optimal, that Nordic country is doing a great service to Europe by providing evidence on the consequences of an alternative policy path.
Giving too much power to any one person is dangerous, especially when that person might be influenced by political considerations that go beyond the best interest of the country as a whole:
That’s not to say Trump’s views are necessary wrong; rather that the procedure he uses to reach decisions is not reliable. Thus I’d still favor local control even if in one particular case you could convince me that the views of the person who happened to be president at the time were superior to the views of the average mayor or governor. In the long run, competition between states will produce better governance than central planning.
Admiral Yamamoto himself said he feared he had "awakened a sleeping giant" after the bombing. Many historians agree that this was a poor decision because America would have probably taken much longer to enter the war had Pearl Harbor not been bombed.
