Michael Kremer's research suggests that higher population might stimulate technological progress. How can higher population stimulate technological change? a. A rise in population at first leads to a decline in per-capita output, and the growth rate of per-capita output will decrease permanently.
b. The research may be just conjecture on the role of technology based on the growth of the world population.
c. A higher population puts more pressure on limited available resources, thereby increasing incentives to spur technological change.
d. A higher population immediately increases α, which, in turn, increases the balanced growth path.

An investment counselor calls with a hot stock tip. he believes that if the economy remains strong, the investment will result in a profit of $40 comma 00040,000. if the economy grows at a moderate pace, the investment will result in a profit of $10 comma 00010,000. however, if the economy goes into recession, the investment will result in a loss of $40 comma 00040,000. you contact an economist who believes there is a 2020% probability the economy will remain strong, a 7070% probability the economy will grow at a moderate pace, and a 1010% probability the economy will slip into recession. what is the expected profit from this investment?

For 2018, rahal's auto parts estimates bad debt expense at 1% of credit sales. the company reported accounts receivable and an allowance for uncollectible accounts of $86,500 and $2,100, respectively, at december 31, 2017. during 2018, rahal's credit sales and collections were $404,000 and $408,000, respectively, and $2,340 in accounts receivable were written off.rahal's accounts receivable at december 31, 2018, are:

In december of 2004, the company you own entered into a 20-year contract with a grain supplier for daily deliveries of grain to its hot dog bun manufacturing facility. the contract called for "10,000 pounds of grain" to be delivered to the facility at the price of $100,000 per day. until february 2017, the supplier provided processed grain which could easily be used in your manufacturing process. however, no longer wanting to absorb the cost of having the grain processed, the supplier began delivering whole grain. the supplier is arguing that the contract does not specify the type of grain that would be supplied and that it has not breached the contract. your company is arguing that the supplier has an onsite processing plant and processed grain was implicit to the terms of the contract. over the remaining term of the contract, reshipping and having the grain processed would cost your company approximately $10,000,000, opposed to a cost of around $1,000,000 to the supplier. after speaking with in-house counsel, it was estimated that litigation would cost the company several million dollars and last for years. weighing the costs of litigation, along with possible ambiguity in the contract, what are three options you could take to resolve the dispute? which would be the best option for your business and why?