Evaluate the effectiveness and ineffectiveness of informal trading

Effectiveness:

1. greater freedom for trading money for goods since the trader can bargain as they desire

2. an informal trader does not need to provide for any employees

3. informal traders can reposition effortlessly since they do not do business in government owned buildings 

4. No tax involved

Ineffectiveness:

1. informal traders can modify prices whenever and all the time as they need it

2. informal traders frequently lie or trick more conveniently for their business    

yes i would go with c

hope i

-lavira: )

question - in 1827, john walker, a druggist in a small english town, tipped a splint with sulphur, chlorate of potash, and sulphid of antimony, and rubbed it on sandpaper, and it burst into flame. the druggist had discovered the first friction-chemical match, the kind we use to-day. it is called friction-chemical because it is made by mixing certain chemicals together and rubbing them. although walker's match did not require the bottle of acid, nevertheless it was not a good one. it could be lighted only by hard rubbing, and it sputtered and threw fire in all directions. in a few years, however, phosphorus was substituted on the tip for antimony, and the change worked wonders. the match could now be lighted with very little rubbing, and it was no longer necessary to have sandpaper upon which to rub it. it would ignite when rubbed on any dry surface, and there was no longer any sputtering. this was the phosphorus match, the match with which we are so familiar. according the paragraph what was the benefit of the new phosphorus match? it burst into flame when rubbed on sandpaper. it was made by mixing chemicals. it could be ignited on any dry surface. it threw fire in all directions.

answer - matches required natural chemicals