The reading says that the relative ease with which entrepreneurs can enter and leave markets is a benefit of the free enterprise system of the United States. Could the same statement be made about a country with a command economy? Why or why not? What implications does that have for the law of supply in that country?

The correct answer to this open question is the following.

Unfortunately, you forgot to include the reading. There is no reading here, no text, excerpt, or a link to it.

However, although you forgot to attach the reading, we can help you commenting an idea based on our knowledge of the topic.

It is correct to say that it is relatively easy that entrepreneurs can enter and leave markets in a free enterprise system of the United States.  Indeed it is one of its advantages.

However, the same affirmation cannot be applied to a country with a command economy because in a command economy the conditions are in total opposition to a free-market economy where individuals promote capitalist ideas to invest money and create companies in order to be rich.

In a command economy, it is the state the one that owns the means of production. The central government decides the kind of products to be produced, the price of the products, how to produce the goods, and the amount that is going to be produced.

The implications that this has for the law of supply in that country is that it cannot be considered because the law of supply/demand is only valid in a free market economy, not in a command economy.

swahili is an extremely rich and complex civilization, a set of ethnic groups articulated by a language and a series of cultural elements that fuse the african traditions, islam and indian culture. this growth was largely a result of the indian ocean trading network that brought in not just man-made riches, but also religious ideas, specifically islam, which had a significant impact on the local culture. furthermore, the development of the swahili language gave a common cultural unity to the people.