1answer.
Ask question
Login Signup
Ask question
All categories
  • English
  • Mathematics
  • Social Studies
  • Business
  • History
  • Health
  • Geography
  • Biology
  • Physics
  • Chemistry
  • Computers and Technology
  • Arts
  • World Languages
  • Spanish
  • French
  • German
  • Advanced Placement (AP)
  • SAT
  • Medicine
  • Law
  • Engineering
grin007 [14]
3 years ago
7

Political leaders often supported Protestantism because they wanted more power. true or false

History
2 answers:
madreJ [45]3 years ago
6 0

Answer:

True                

Explanation:

Took test on edge

Natalka [10]3 years ago
3 0
True. They supported it because it led them to new creations.
You might be interested in
assess the degree to which economic, rather than social or political, factors gave rise to the italian renaissance? If your a ge
omeli [17]
<span>What were the social factors that encouraged and promoted the Renaissance in Italy in the period from 1350 to 1500. The Italian Renaissance was one of the world’s greatest period in culture and the arts. It produced writers such as Machiavelli and artists such as Leonardo da Vinci. The political, economic and social transformation of Italy encouraged people to adopt a new world view, that fundamentally transformed Italy</span>
6 0
3 years ago
A measure of the degree to which the water loses its transparency and becomes cloudy or hazy (similar to smoke in the air) due t
Alenkinab [10]

Turbidity. As your book/question states it is a measurement of cloudiness in water.

6 0
3 years ago
Use the photograph below showing the physicists Albert Einstein and J. Robert Oppenheimer talking to answer the following questi
Step2247 [10]
I think its the last one
6 0
3 years ago
Read 2 more answers
Which are examples of new security measures that were established after September 11, 2001? Check all that apply.
vovangra [49]
1111111111111111111111
3 0
2 years ago
1. How does the author characterize the
nexus9112 [7]

Answer:s the United States enters the 21st century, it stands unchallenged as the world’s economic leader, a remarkable turnaround from the 1980s when many Americans had doubts about U.S. “competitiveness.” Productivity growth—the engine of improvement in average living standards—has rebounded from a 25-year slump of a little more than 1 percent a year to roughly 2.5 percent since 1995, a gain few had predicted.

Economic engagement with the rest of the world has played a key part in the U.S. economic revival. Our relatively open borders, which permit most foreign goods to come in with a zero or low tariff, have helped keep inflation in check, allowing the Federal Reserve to let the good times roll without hiking up interest rates as quickly as it might otherwise have done. Indeed, the influx of funds from abroad during the Asian financial crisis kept interest rates low and thereby encouraged a continued boom in investment and consumption, which more than offset any decline in American exports to Asia. Even so, during the 1990s, exports accounted for almost a quarter of the growth of output (though just 12 percent of U.S. gross domestic product at the end of the decade).

Yet as the new century dawns, America’s increasing economic interdependence with the rest of the world, known loosely as “globalization,” has come under attack. Much of the criticism is aimed at two international institutions that the United States helped create and lead: the International Monetary Fund, launched after World War II to provide emergency loans to countries with temporary balance-of-payments problems, and the World Trade Organization, created in 1995 during the last round of world trade negotiations, primarily to help settle trade disputes among countries.

The attacks on both institutions are varied and often inconsistent. But they clearly have taken their toll. For all practical purposes, the IMF is not likely to have its resources augmented any time soon by Congress (and thus by other national governments). Meanwhile, the failure of the WTO meetings in Seattle last December to produce even a roadmap for future trade negotiations—coupled with the protests that soiled the proceedings—has thrown a wrench into plans to reduce remaining barriers to world trade and investment.

For better or worse, it is now up to the United States, as it has been since World War II, to help shape the future of both organizations and arguably the course of the global economy. A broad consensus appears to exist here and elsewhere that governments should strive to improve the stability of the world economy and to advance living standards. But the consensus breaks down over how to do so. As the United States prepares to pick a new president and a new Congress, citizens and policymakers should be asking how best to promote stability and growth in the years ahead.

Unilateralism

6 0
3 years ago
Other questions:
  • As a result of the westward expansion of the United States,
    10·2 answers
  • Is Germany home of Gutenberg
    6·2 answers
  • How did Frederick Douglass react to Edward Covey, the cruel slave "breaker" who often beat him?
    12·2 answers
  • what are 4 artifacts for a time capsule that are representative of a particular theme that comes from at least 2 regions
    12·1 answer
  • Describe the impact Communism had on American life in the 1950s.
    15·1 answer
  • How did the law protect the citizens of the Babylonian Empire?​
    8·2 answers
  • Which country chose to not join the League of Nations
    11·1 answer
  • During the Great Depression, Americans moved away from the indivisualism and the nation became more of a welfare state. Explain
    10·1 answer
  • PLEASE HELP ME QUICKLY!!!!!!
    9·2 answers
  • Should war have rules? In other words, should people, or militaries be allowed to use any tactics while engaging in combat with
    5·1 answer
Add answer
Login
Not registered? Fast signup
Signup
Login Signup
Ask question!