Answer:
In any regard, supporters of <em>laissez-faire </em>governmental policies were often advocates for the "free market". They would suggest that federal or state involvement in business would stagnate and decelerate the growth of the economy. The "invisible hand" of the market does not actually exist, but this argument would be made in order to support the assertion that government involvement was not required. In reality, significant economic downfalls of the past could have been avoided, had the governments of "unregulated business" nations played a more active role. Claims such as these were made for the purpose of promoting a self-sustaining economy, even when such a thing cannot coexist with financial disparity.
I hope this helped you understand the motives behind <em>laissez-faire </em> business and government policies. Blessings to you.
Answer:
B
Explanation:
in the last sentence, it says "French colonizers", so the answer is B
That is the only way i got this. lol
Answer:
Through the 1920s, Britain's economy was already struggling to pay for the effects of World War I. Then, in 1929, the US stock market crashed. ... The value of British exports halved, plunging its industrial areas into poverty: by the end of 1930, unemployment more than doubled to 20 per cent
A major goal of the Hutu-led regime in Rwanda in mid-1994 was to (1) eliminate the Tutsi minority. There had been ethnic tensions between the minority Hutu population and the majority Tutsi population, because the Hutus had been favored by the Belgians (who had previously colonized the country) and now held high positions in government and were economically better off. Once the plane of the president of Rwanda was shot down, the genocide began within a few hours.
