2.2 Match the words with their definitions. 1.dish 3 A. the noise a clock makes to tell you what time it is 2.seaweed B. the most important woman at a wedding 3.chime A C.12 o'clock at night 4.bride D. the most important man at a wedding 5.groom E. a plate of food which people share 6.midnight F. green sea plant
I am glad to receive a letter from you and can answer your questions.
In my country people very love environment and always take care of it.
My relatives use eco light bulbs to save energy. My friends often sort their trash and someone even resycles the litter. Our government should pay more attention to our environment. We have some kind of organization like Greenpeace, but without help of our government they are useless.
I would like to create an organization which will help our environment and in future wil save our country from natural disasters
Can you tell me more about your exams? What about your plans for the coming holidays? Can we meet in Skype on the next Monday?
France produces fewer start-ups than the average developed nation, and has historically had a higher rate of unemployment. Critics are quick to blame both on its generous welfare state. But in 2001, the nation’s policymakers were able to boost entrepreneurship, according to a recent paper. And they did it by making welfare policies even more generous.
Unemployment insurance had been a substantial deterrent to entrepreneurship in France, because individuals without jobs ceased to be eligible for it if they founded a business. So the French Ministry of Labor enacted a series of reforms which allowed founders to continue to draw unemployment benefits during the first three years of their business, subject to some restrictions, and to remain eligible for such benefits if the business subsequently failed.
The reforms appeared to have an almost immediate effect: the rate of new firms created rose by 25%. But researchers at MIT, Berkeley, and HEC Paris set out to determine whether the increase was actually caused by the policy change. They wondered whether some of the change could have had to do with the state of the economy, or whether the quality of the new businesses was lower as a result. They found that at least a large part of the increase was directly a result of the policy, and that the new businesses seemed at least as productive and sustainable as older ones. Moreover, they estimate that the change boosted the nation’s economy by €350 million per year, at a cost of only €100 million annually.
To measure all this, the researchers broke up the data (from 1999 to 2005) by industry. The idea was that it would be comparatively easier for the unemployed to start a business in an industry where small firms are already prevalent. (Starting a business in an industry made up of larger firms would require more capital than was provided by unemployment insurance.) If the increase in entrepreneurship was really caused by the reforms, it ought to be more dramatic in industries with more small firms. And that’s just what they found.
They used the same approach to measure the quality of the businesses. Start-ups founded after the reforms in industries with more small firms — the ones more likely to have been the direct result of the reforms — were just as likely to stay in business, to grow, and to hire as those in industries with more large firms. The entrepreneurs were equally as well-educated in both groups as well. Perhaps most importantly, the new firms were more productive and paid higher wages than the average incumbent.
“Our most conservative estimates suggest that about 12,000 additional firms are created every year thanks to the reform,” the authors conclude.
There is a narrow lesson here, and a broad one. The narrow one for policymakers is that welfare programs can in fact distort entrepreneurial incentives, but dismembering those programs isn’t the only or best option. This is consistent with previous research, which found that expanding government-sponsored health insurance encouraged more people to start businesses. And that leads to the broader lesson.
Because entrepreneurs inevitably take risks, we tend to think that people who aren’t comfortable with large amounts of risk wouldn’t make good entrepreneurs. The data doesn’t support that view. Research from the UK has shown that in fact, entrepreneurs are more cautious than the general population. “Higher risk-taking increases the propensity to launch a business, but does not correlate with greater start-up success,” wrote Tomas Chamorro-Premuzic, a professor at University College London, in a previous HBR article, citing a meta-analysis of several studies. “In fact, conscientious and prudent founders tend to do significantly better.” And in France’s case, the entrepreneurs who were enticed to start something once the financial risks were lessened were just as qualified and successful as those already in the game.
In that sense, this research is an argument about what entrepreneurship is and isn’t, and who’s qualified to do it. Entrepreneurs will always take some risks, particularly with their time and reputations. But starting a business is about more than that, and it shouldn’t include being forced to go broke in the process.
Объяснение:
Dear Ann,
I am glad to receive a letter from you and can answer your questions.
In my country people very love environment and always take care of it.
My relatives use eco light bulbs to save energy. My friends often sort their trash and someone even resycles the litter. Our government should pay more attention to our environment. We have some kind of organization like Greenpeace, but without help of our government they are useless.
I would like to create an organization which will help our environment and in future wil save our country from natural disasters
Can you tell me more about your exams? What about your plans for the coming holidays? Can we meet in Skype on the next Monday?
Waiting for your reply,
Your Stan
сердце и оценку если все как надо
France produces fewer start-ups than the average developed nation, and has historically had a higher rate of unemployment. Critics are quick to blame both on its generous welfare state. But in 2001, the nation’s policymakers were able to boost entrepreneurship, according to a recent paper. And they did it by making welfare policies even more generous.
Unemployment insurance had been a substantial deterrent to entrepreneurship in France, because individuals without jobs ceased to be eligible for it if they founded a business. So the French Ministry of Labor enacted a series of reforms which allowed founders to continue to draw unemployment benefits during the first three years of their business, subject to some restrictions, and to remain eligible for such benefits if the business subsequently failed.
The reforms appeared to have an almost immediate effect: the rate of new firms created rose by 25%. But researchers at MIT, Berkeley, and HEC Paris set out to determine whether the increase was actually caused by the policy change. They wondered whether some of the change could have had to do with the state of the economy, or whether the quality of the new businesses was lower as a result. They found that at least a large part of the increase was directly a result of the policy, and that the new businesses seemed at least as productive and sustainable as older ones. Moreover, they estimate that the change boosted the nation’s economy by €350 million per year, at a cost of only €100 million annually.
To measure all this, the researchers broke up the data (from 1999 to 2005) by industry. The idea was that it would be comparatively easier for the unemployed to start a business in an industry where small firms are already prevalent. (Starting a business in an industry made up of larger firms would require more capital than was provided by unemployment insurance.) If the increase in entrepreneurship was really caused by the reforms, it ought to be more dramatic in industries with more small firms. And that’s just what they found.
They used the same approach to measure the quality of the businesses. Start-ups founded after the reforms in industries with more small firms — the ones more likely to have been the direct result of the reforms — were just as likely to stay in business, to grow, and to hire as those in industries with more large firms. The entrepreneurs were equally as well-educated in both groups as well. Perhaps most importantly, the new firms were more productive and paid higher wages than the average incumbent.
“Our most conservative estimates suggest that about 12,000 additional firms are created every year thanks to the reform,” the authors conclude.
There is a narrow lesson here, and a broad one. The narrow one for policymakers is that welfare programs can in fact distort entrepreneurial incentives, but dismembering those programs isn’t the only or best option. This is consistent with previous research, which found that expanding government-sponsored health insurance encouraged more people to start businesses. And that leads to the broader lesson.
Because entrepreneurs inevitably take risks, we tend to think that people who aren’t comfortable with large amounts of risk wouldn’t make good entrepreneurs. The data doesn’t support that view. Research from the UK has shown that in fact, entrepreneurs are more cautious than the general population. “Higher risk-taking increases the propensity to launch a business, but does not correlate with greater start-up success,” wrote Tomas Chamorro-Premuzic, a professor at University College London, in a previous HBR article, citing a meta-analysis of several studies. “In fact, conscientious and prudent founders tend to do significantly better.” And in France’s case, the entrepreneurs who were enticed to start something once the financial risks were lessened were just as qualified and successful as those already in the game.
In that sense, this research is an argument about what entrepreneurship is and isn’t, and who’s qualified to do it. Entrepreneurs will always take some risks, particularly with their time and reputations. But starting a business is about more than that, and it shouldn’t include being forced to go broke in the process.
надеюсь правильно.