A command economy is a planned economy and is the type of economic system where the investments, production and allocation of capital goods take place as per the plans.
Hence the option C is correct.
Learn more about some nations that adopt command economies.
Answer:
C-to focus resources on essential industries
Explanation:
During a war, some governments change their economic system from a market economy to a command economy. This is done out of necessity as resources may.
answer: by adding new buildings or solveing problems in a diffrent way
Answer:
Communities do not evolve per se; rather, they shift in composition, diversity, and structure through time. The assembly of local communities is influenced by both regional factors and local processes, each of which can influence evolutionary patterns and processes within those communities.
i searched it up and heres what i found
They built a powerful army to defend the empire.
B.
They allowed conquered people to elect rulers.
C.
They forced conquered people to use their language.
D.
They forced their religion on conquered people.
The Inca Empire (also known as the Incan Empire) and the Inka Empire were and are the largest empires in pre-Columbian America.
Option B is the way how Inca unified their empire.
For more information about the Inca empire, refer below:
Answer:
d
Explanation:
Answer: A decrease in the number of buyers
Explanation:
And if there are less customers, and no one wants to purchase your stuff, you would have a greater supply but less demand for your products.
Answer:
Changes in the prices of other goods
Explanation:
According to the text "Evaluating a Case Study: Developing a Practical Ethical Viewpoint," Ms. Smith, Mrs. Taylor and Mr. Jones cannot agree on who deserves to win a prize for outstanding moral behaviour. The candidates are Mr. Big and Mrs. Little. The main ethical concerns are: whether one big, good act counts more than many small good acts; whether benefitting one person greatly is better than benefitting many in small ways; and whether a good act that does not benefit the actor is better than an act that does benefit him.
The approach that I would use is utilitarianism. According to this approach, the "most" moral act is the one that contributes to the greater happiness of a greater number of people. According to this idea, Mr. Big would win the award. This is because Mr. Big saved a man from drowning. However, this man was an important businessman, which means that Mr. Big also saved all of the man's employees from having to face unemployment. He benefitted the largest number of people.
b) The Earth revolves on its axis and rotates around the Sun
c) The Earth rotates on its axis and revolves around the Sun.
d) The Earth rotates on its axis and revolves around the Moon.
Answer:
C
Explanation:
The earth rotate on its axis and revolves around the sun
Answer: Nathanson says that there is no way to respect the dignity of both people’s right
Explanation:
Killing is not an easy thing to do, but there is a great difference between self-defense and outright killing, but either ways, someone will definitely die. Nathanson says that there is no way to respect the dignity of both people’s right.
Nathanson argues that killing in self-defense is compatible with the respect for the dignity of human life by upholding the right to bodily autonomy and moral considerations. Killing in such circumstances is seen as a response to an immediate threat to one's life and not as an act of aggression.
The explanation of how Nathanson argues that killing in self defense is compatible with respect for the dignity of human life lies in the concept of the sanctity of human life, the right to bodily autonomy, and moral and rational considerations. According to Nathanson, killing in self-defense is morally justified when one's life is in immediate threat or danger. In such cases, the dignity of human life is respected as the act of self-defense is carried out in preservation of one's own life.
Nathanson suggests that every individual has a right to bodily autonomy – the right of individuals to determine what happens to their bodies. When the life of an individual is threatened, they have the right to defend themselves, which may at times involve killing as a last resort. This act of killing is seen as a response to an immediate danger and not as an act of aggression.
Moreover, Nathanson's argument can also be connected to moral reasoning. He doesn't argue that killing is generally acceptable, but rather, only under very specific circumstances such as self-defense where it's seen as the lesser of two evils. Thus, recognizing the sanctity and dignity of human life while also acknowledging situations where self-defense is necessary involves a complex interplay of moral, ethical and personal considerations according to Nathanson.
#SPJ11