Did political action save us from the disastrous consequences of the 2008 crisis? Did the politicians inadvertently cause the crisis and then attempt to shift the blame elsewhere?

Did political action save us from the disastrous consequences of the 2008 crisis? Did the politicians inadvertently cause the crisis and then attempt to shift the blame elsewhere?

Energy consumed in the US can be classified ascoming from one of three sources: fossil fuels, nuclear power, andrenewable energy. In 2014, the energy from these three sourceswas 80.3, 8.3, and 9.6 quadrillion BTU, respectively. In 2004, thecorresponding amounts were 85.8, 8.2, and 6.1. Write a descriptionof the changes from 2004 to 2014 expressed in these data. Illustrateyour summary with appropriate graphical summaries. Be sure todiscuss both the amounts of energy from each source as well as thepercents.

1. Liz is retiring from the US Postal Service and will turn 70 next year. After 39 years of service, her monthly pension is $7,500. She does not qualify for Social Security. Liz has accumulated $700,000 in her thrift savings plan. The government requires that she convert it to an annuity or move it to a IRA. All of the money is pretax and tax can be avoided if it is moved to the IRA. The annuity will be calculated based on her life expectancy of 17.5 years after age 70. The current US Treasury long-term bond rate is 3 percent. How much will she get as an annuity monthly payment? Should Liz take the annuity or move the money to the IRA? The tax regulations require that she take out 4 percent of the amount each year.

2. Kathy plans to move to Maryland and take a job at McCormick as the assistant director of HR. She and her husband, Stan, plan to buy a house in Garrison, MD, and their budget is $500,000. They have $100,000 for the down payment and McCormick will pay for closing costs. They are considering either a 30-year mortgage at 4.5 percent annual rate or a 15 year mortgage at 4 percent. Calculate the monthly payment for each. Property taxes and insurance will add $1,000 per month to which ever mortgage they choose. What should Kathy and Stan do?

The following trial balance has been extracted from the books and records of Carpets R Us Limited, a registered company, on the 30^th September 2019:

Additional information is:-

• Inventory at 30^th September 2019 was valued at £54,200.

• Depreciation is to be provided on a 20% reducing balance basis for the year for motor vehicles and 10% straight line basis for fixtures and fittings.
• Rent & insurance contains an invoice for £1,200 for the quarter ending 31^st November 2019.

• Provision is to be made for an audit fee of £2,500 and a director’s fee of £18,250. These amounts were calculated after the year end but related to this year.

• The directors have identified one customer who owes them £1,500 who has been declared bankrupt; the company is unlikely to receive any money.

• Corporation tax is charged at £44,887.
• The directors propose an ordinary dividend of 10 pence per ordinary share to include the interim dividend paid.

Required:

Using international accounting standards (IAS) produce the following financial statements: (A cash Flow Statement is not required)

1. The statement of profit or loss for the year ended 30^th September 2019.

[6 marks]

2. The statement of changes in equity for the year ended 30^th September 2019.

[6 marks]

3. The statement of financial position as at that date.

[13 marks]

4. All your workings as notes to the accounts.

[25 marks]

For this discussion, let us return to our favorite local merchants from units 5 and 6. What inventory valuation method would you advise them to use? Why do you think it is the best suited to their business? Describe the valuation method you would use (ex.FIFO or LIFO) and why. Describe how you would adjust the value of inventory by applying the lower of cost or market technique. THIS COULD BE A SPORTING GOODS STORE OR GROCERY.

The US has threatened new trade tariffs on beer, chocolate, and olives from the European Union, as part of a long-running row over subsidies to plane maker Airbus.

The US Trade Representative said it was considering duties on 30 products worth $3.1bn (£2.5bn) in trade every year.

It has already put 15% to 25% tariffs on $7.5bn worth of other EU goods as part of the dispute.

The EU warned it would damage firms on both side of the Atlantic.

And UK Trade Minister Liz Truss said she was disappointed by the move, warning against the use of "tit-for-tat" tariffs.

The row centres on EU subsidies given to Airbus before 2004, which Washington says created an unfair advantage over the US aircraft manufacturer Boeing.

Last year, the World Trade Organization (WTO) ruled the subsidies were illegal and allowed the US to levy tariffs on EU goods, including aircraft, wines, and cheese.

But it is now considering a parallel case involving illegal support for Boeing, which could see the EU imposing duties later this year.

The US said pastry and cakes, gin, cashmere clothes and hardware products could all be in the firing line for new tariffs, affecting exporters across the continent.

In a statement the EU said Washington was going beyond what was allowed by the WTO.

"It creates uncertainty for companies and inflicts unnecessary economic damage on both sides of the Atlantic," it added.

"This is particularly the case as companies are now trying to overcome the economic difficulties in the aftermath of the Covid-19 crisis."

Questions: (Your answers should not exceed 400 words).

1. This story raises two major international trade issues. What are they?

2. Give two reasons why retaliatory tariffs are wrong in international trade. Name the remedy allowed under WTO rules for government subsidies?

A summary of 150 words..

Can A Soda Tax Save Us From Ourselves? AS governments large and small face sizable budget shortfalls, policy makers are looking for ways to raise tax revenue that will do the least harm and, perhaps, even a bit of good. One idea keeps popping up: a tax on soda and other sugary drinks. The city council in Washington recently passed such a tax. Gov. David A. Paterson has sought one in New York. And a national soda tax was briefly considered by the Senate Finance Committee as a way to help pay for President Obama's health care overhaul. But is a soda tax a good idea? Economists have often advocated taxing consumption rather than income, on the grounds that consumption taxes do less to discourage saving, investment and economic growth. Hence the case for broad-based consumption taxes, like a value-added tax. The main issue for the soda tax, however, is whether certain forms of consumption should be singled out for particularly high levels of taxation. One argument for specific taxes is that consuming certain products has an adverse impact on bystanders. Economists call these effects negative externalities. Taxes on gasoline can be justified along these lines. Whenever you go out for a drive, you are to some degree committing an antisocial act. You make the roads more congested, increasing the commuting time of your neighbors. You increase the likelihood that other drivers will end up in accidents. And the gasoline you burn adds to pollution, including the greenhouse gases thought to cause global climate change. Many economists advocate gasoline taxes so that drivers will internalize these negative externalities. That is, by raising the price of gasoline, a tax would induce consumers to take into account the harm they cause after making their purchases. One prominent study added up all the externalities associated with driving and concluded that the optimal gasoline tax is over $2 a gallon, about five times the current level (combining the federal and a typical state's levies) and about the tax rate in many European countries. Applying that logic to other consumer goods, however, is not as straightforward. Consider cigarettes. They are among the economy's most heavily taxed products, as governments try to discourage people from smoking. Yet the case for such a policy cannot rely on a conventional externality argument. When a person sits at home and smokes two packs a day, the main adverse impact is on his or her own health. And even if second-hand smoke is a concern, that problem is most naturally addressed within the household, not at the state or federal level. Sometimes, advocates of ''sin'' taxes contend that consumers of certain products impose adverse budgetary externalities on the rest of us -- that if the consumption induces, say, smoking- or obesity-related illness, it raises health care costs, which we all pay for through higher taxes or insurance premiums. Yet this argument has a flip side: If consumers of these products die earlier, they will also collect less in pension payments, including Social Security. Economists have run the numbers for smoking and often find that these savings may more than offset the budgetary costs. In other words, smokers have little net financial impact on the rest of us. It may seem grisly to consider the budgetary savings of an early death as a ''benefit'' to society. But when analyzing policy, economists are nothing if not cold-blooded. If one uses budgetary costs to justify taxing particular consumption goods, the accounting needs to be honest and complete. There is, however, an altogether different argument for these taxes: that when someone consumes such goods, he does impose a negative externality -- on the future version of himself. In other words, the person today enjoys the consumption, but the person tomorrow and every day after pays the price of increased risk of illness. This raises an intriguing question: To what extent should we view the future versions of ourselves as different people from ourselves today? To be sure, most parents have no trouble restricting a child's decisions on the grounds that doing so is in the young person's best interest. Few teenagers are farsighted enough to fully incorporate the interests of their future selves when making decisions. As parents, we hope that someday our grown-up children will be grateful for our current restrictions on their behavior. But people do not suddenly mature at the age of 18, when society deems us ''adults.'' There is always an adolescent lurking inside us, feeling the pull of instant gratification and too easily ignoring the long-run effects of our decisions. Taxes on items with short-run benefits and long-run costs tell our current selves to take into account the welfare of our future selves. IF this is indeed the best argument for ''sin'' taxes, as I believe it is, we are led to vexing questions of political philosophy: To what extent should we use the power of the state to protect us from ourselves? If we go down that route, where do we stop? Taxing soda may encourage better nutrition and benefit our future selves. But so could taxing candy, ice cream and fried foods. Subsidizing broccoli, gym memberships and dental floss comes next. Taxing mindless television shows and subsidizing serious literature cannot be far behind. Even as adults, we sometimes wish for parents to be looking over our shoulders and guiding us to the right decisions. The question is, do you trust the government enough to appoint it your guardian?

PLEASE SUMMARIZE THIS FOR ME::::::::::::::::

Can A Soda Tax Save Us From Ourselves?

AS governments large and small face sizable budget shortfalls, policy makers are looking for ways to raise tax revenue that will do the least harm and, perhaps, even a bit of good. One idea keeps popping up: a tax on soda and other sugary drinks.

The city council in Washington recently passed such a tax. Gov. David A. Paterson has sought one in New York. And a national soda tax was briefly considered by the Senate Finance Committee as a way to help pay for President Obama's health care overhaul.

But is a soda tax a good idea?

Economists have often advocated taxing consumption rather than income, on the grounds that consumption taxes do less to discourage saving, investment and economic growth. Hence the case for broad-based consumption taxes, like a value-added tax. The main issue for the soda tax, however, is whether certain forms of consumption should be singled out for particularly high levels of taxation.

One argument for specific taxes is that consuming certain products has an adverse impact on bystanders. Economists call these effects negative externalities.

Taxes on gasoline can be justified along these lines. Whenever you go out for a drive, you are to some degree committing an antisocial act. You make the roads more congested, increasing the commuting time of your neighbors. You increase the likelihood that other drivers will end up in accidents. And the gasoline you burn adds to pollution, including the greenhouse gases thought to cause global climate change.

Many economists advocate gasoline taxes so that drivers will internalize these negative externalities. That is, by raising the price of gasoline, a tax would induce consumers to take into account the harm they cause after making their purchases. One prominent study added up all the externalities associated with driving and concluded that the optimal gasoline tax is over $2 a gallon, about five times the current level (combining the federal and a typical state's levies) and about the tax rate in many European countries.

Applying that logic to other consumer goods, however, is not as straightforward. Consider cigarettes. They are among the economy's most heavily taxed products, as governments try to discourage people from smoking. Yet the case for such a policy cannot rely on a conventional externality argument.

When a person sits at home and smokes two packs a day, the main adverse impact is on his or her own health. And even if second-hand smoke is a concern, that problem is most naturally addressed within the household, not at the state or federal level.

Sometimes, advocates of ''sin'' taxes contend that consumers of certain products impose adverse budgetary externalities on the rest of us -- that if the consumption induces, say, smoking- or obesity-related illness, it raises health care costs, which we all pay for through higher taxes or insurance premiums.

Yet this argument has a flip side: If consumers of these products die earlier, they will also collect less in pension payments, including Social Security. Economists have run the numbers for smoking and often find

that these savings may more than offset the budgetary costs. In other words, smokers have little net financial impact on the rest of us.

It may seem grisly to consider the budgetary savings of an early death as a ''benefit'' to society. But when analyzing policy, economists are nothing if not cold-blooded. If one uses budgetary costs to justify taxing particular consumption goods, the accounting needs to be honest and complete.

There is, however, an altogether different argument for these taxes: that when someone consumes such goods, he does impose a negative externality -- on the future version of himself. In other words, the person today enjoys the consumption, but the person tomorrow and every day after pays the price of increased risk of illness.

This raises an intriguing question: To what extent should we view the future versions of ourselves as different people from ourselves today?

To be sure, most parents have no trouble restricting a child's decisions on the grounds that doing so is in the young person's best interest. Few teenagers are farsighted enough to fully incorporate the interests of their future selves when making decisions. As parents, we hope that someday our grown-up children will be grateful for our current restrictions on their behavior.

But people do not suddenly mature at the age of 18, when society deems us ''adults.'' There is always an adolescent lurking inside us, feeling the pull of instant gratification and too easily ignoring the long-run effects of our decisions. Taxes on items with short-run benefits and long-run costs tell our current selves to take into account the welfare of our future selves.

IF this is indeed the best argument for ''sin'' taxes, as I believe it is, we are led to vexing questions of political philosophy: To what extent should we use the power of the state to protect us from ourselves? If we go down that route, where do we stop?

Taxing soda may encourage better nutrition and benefit our future selves. But so could taxing candy, ice cream and fried foods. Subsidizing broccoli, gym memberships and dental floss comes next. Taxing mindless television shows and subsidizing serious literature cannot be far behind.

Even as adults, we sometimes wish for parents to be looking over our shoulders and guiding us to the right decisions. The question is, do you trust the government enough to appoint it your guardian?

Each year in the US, millions of people become ill and thousands die from eating food contaminated with bacteria. Controlling growth of microorganisms on food is a particular challenge, and over the course of many centuries various methods have been developed for controlling microorganisms in food. Some of these include preservation by irradiation, drying, freezing, canning, and salting. Preservation by salting is based on the principles of osmosis. One example of this is the preservation of ham by applying large amounts of salt (“salt-cured”) or sugar (“sugar-cured”) to the meat within 48 hours after slaughter. Using information you learned in this lab, speculate about how this process works to preserve ham.