A. high unemployment
B. deflation
C. rising stock prices
D. none of the above
2007-06-01 20:45:54 · 7 answers · asked by Anonymous in Arts & Humanities ➔ History
Seriously? Come on, now. Stocks = money, as in, how much money the American economy is worth. So rising stocks is good. Deflation = the pay check you got last week is now worth more than when you earned it, and so... well, it's sort of good. It's better than the other way around.
And I'm sure you've seen movies or seen pictures of SOMETHING, so there's your answer.
2007-06-01 20:50:37 · answer #1 · answered by Cedar 5 · 0⤊ 1⤋
It just isn't the one factor in picking out a high-quality cricketer, however statistics must be the foremost factor that determines a nice cricketer. For example most effective Indians might real believe that Sachin Tendulkar is best than Bradman was in his taking part in days given Bradman played for two decades and averaged ninety nine.Ninety four in experiment cricket in comparison with Sachin who has now performed for slightly longer quantity of years and averages almost fifty seven. Any educated man or woman who has examine or saw the apparatus of at present and of the 1930's and 40's, boundaries, pitches and so forth in Bradmans day can see Tendulkar, Ponting, Hayden, Kallis, Dravid, Lara etc have all had it easy compared to the greats in Bradman's day the place pitches were uncovered and have been of unsafe most of the time. No one be it Tendulkar, Ponting, Dravid or any person unless cricket is now not performed will ever equal Bradman's typical over a 20+ yr career. Sure Tendulkar is probably the finest batsman on this generation, but anybody who believes a person averaging no longer even 57 is healthier than a man who averaged 99.94 is fooling themselves. If Bradman performed today with the entire extra advantages and the fact who do not have long past a quantity of years with out cricket within the center of his career, he would have scored over 200 centuries in test cricket and have about 24,000+ test runs
2016-08-11 14:50:45 · answer #2 · answered by husted 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
A. high unemployment At one time there were at least 25% of the work force unemployed because of the effects of the Great Depression.
2007-06-02 03:16:17 · answer #3 · answered by Dave aka Spider Monkey 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Deflation.
2007-06-01 21:03:44 · answer #4 · answered by Rakesh Singh 2 · 0⤊ 1⤋
A. High unemployment
2007-06-01 20:51:04 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
A. is the answer, but it all came out of a weak stock market.
2007-06-04 07:58:58 · answer #6 · answered by Aprililly 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
no anti-depressants. get it?
2007-06-01 20:49:49 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋