Typically changing prices only affect supply and demand when one creates artificial demand for it. In almost any cases, it is typically the supply and demand that affects the price changes.
We must firstly understand how supply and demand affect changing prices before we can understand the opposite effect. For example, if there is 100 units, and there are only 50 buyers, the supply is more than the demand. To generate artificial demand therefore, the supplier may lower the prices in an effort to sell off all units. On the other hand, if there is 100 units, but there are more than 100 buyers, than the supplier may raise the prices. This lowers the demand for the product as well as maximizing profits. This example assumes that there is only one supplier of the unit that is in demand.
If however, the supplier has competitors within the field (and is not bound by law to set a certain rate), they may change the prices to be lower than their competitors, in an effort to increase more demand for the prices. It would artificially drive down prices, thereby making profits less. If competitors are not able to survive with less profit and/or be able to lower their own prices, they would be forced to go out of business, either by closing or selling their shops. In turn, when the original company buys up their competitors assets, they then hold a monopoly or close to a monopoly of the given field. This allows them to artificially change the price on their own discretion, typically known for the term <em>price-gouging</em>. Historically in the United States, this has occurred, especially in the oil industry, but price-gouging of many consumer necessities have been banned and a official rate has been set for them.
Essentially, in a true supply and demand, changing a price to be higher than market value may lead to a lower demand, and therefore a surplus of the product, which leads to a artificial low price, while changing a price to be below market value may generate higher demand, which in turn leads to a artificial high price.
~
Answer:
The US victory in the Spanish American War resulted in the Us gaining possession and/or control of many new territories. These and other territorial gains resulted in the creation of a new far flung empire. ... In 1895 Hawaii became a US territory.
John dean’s testimony against President Nixon was damaging because he have been an important official in the White House.
<h3>What is the testimony about?</h3>
As an official in the White house, he gave a testimony in relation to the Watergate scandal that Nikon was accused for during his election campaign,
Hence, his testimony was damaging because he have been an important official in the White House.
Therefore, the Option B is correct.
Read more about Watergate scandal
<em>brainly.com/question/1687216</em>
A would be the answer to this
Answer:
Manifest Destiny is the idea that a country has the right or wants to rule the world or a large portion of land. The Mexican American War was fought for control of modern day California, Texas, etc. Even though this was Mexican land, the United States decided to wage war for control of these lands. This is an example of America's spread of territory and power.
Hope it helps!
Brainliest please
Explanation:
