The first major American opposition to British policy came in 1765 after Parliament passed the Stamp Act, a taxation measure designed to raise revenues for a standing British army in America. Under the banner of “no taxation without representation,” colonists convened the Stamp Act Congress in October 1765 to vocalize their opposition to the tax. With its enactment in November, most colonists called for a boycott of British goods, and some organized attacks on customhouses and homes of tax collectors.
After months of protest in the colonies, Parliament finally voted to repeal the Stamp Act in March 1766. Most colonists continued to quietly accept British rule until Parliament’s enactment of the Tea Act in 1773, a bill designed to save the faltering British East India Company by greatly lowering its tea tax and granting it a monopoly on the American tea trade. The low tax allowed the company to undercut even tea smuggled into America by Dutch traders, and many colonists viewed the act as another example of taxation tyranny. Hope this helps!
Answer:
Great Britain and France agreed to rule Canada jointly.
Explanation:
During the war, Great Britain defeated various French provinces in North America and the Caribbean, French exchanging posts India, and French-controlled domains in West Africa.
The marking of the settlement officially finished the Seven Years' War, known as the French and Indian War in the North American theater, and denoted the start of a time of British strength outside Europe. The bargain didn't include Prussia and Austria as they consented to a different arrangement, the Treaty of Hubertus burg, after five days.
<h3>
Answer: A. competition among producers</h3>
==========================================================
Explanation:
Competition reduces prices while also increasing the quality of the product or service. Companies that don't do such things will likely be out of business since the customer can go elsewhere for a better experience. The more competition, the better consumers are off.
In contrast, monopolies are bad for consumers because one company can set the price to whatever they want (to a certain level of course) and the customer has no choice to pay that price. The customer does not have any other option so the company is in full control. This leads to decline in quality because quality is often associated with cost. Safety standards may decline as well. So this is why monopolies are not good for the customer. In cases where there are monopolies, such as with power utilities, it is strongly advised that government regulations are put in place. This way the company doesn't completely exploit the customer.
In short, we can eliminate choice D because it runs counter to choice A.
Choice C can also be eliminated because if you had a decrease in supply, then the price of the product is likely to go up if you hold other factors in check (such as keeping the same level of demand). Higher prices do not benefit consumers unless those consumers had an equal or better wage increase.
A raise in interest rates means that it becomes more expensive to borrow money. For example, a raise in interest rates means that mortgage rates go higher. This negative is slightly counterbalanced with the fact that savings accounts interest rates go up as well. Overall, I think a rise in interest rates means that consumers ultimately pay more, so we can cross choice B off the list as well.
A decade after gaining its independence from Mexico, Texas accepted annexation into the United States on Dec. 29, 1845.
The answer is information gaps. These are missing
information necessary to complete a job. The United States give out with fears
in the 1990s about a gap between "information haves" and
"information have-nots" by ratification of a new act that endowed the
connection of every insttution and archive to the Internet.
