I don’t know the difference between McDonald v Chicago and dc v heller
Wouldnt the andwer of your profit be $300?
Answer:
The correct answer is C. To keep claiming land and looking for gold.
Explanation:
Although the European kings did not obtain many treasures, their main motivation for continuing to finance westward exploration was to claim new lands under their sovereignty, and to exploit the natural resources they possessed, especially gold and silver.
Thus, the Age of Discovery must be understood as framed within the economic and political process of mercantilism, through which European nations sought to conquer new lands and establish colonies there, which would allow them to accumulate wealth through the exploitation of their raw materials.
Answer:
majority stakeholder
Explanation:
The main reasons for the formation of joint-stock companies some percentage of the state in its capital:
- the joint-stock form makes it possible in the future, without any organizational changes, to throw out a block of shares on the market for the full or partial privatization of such joint-stock companies and attract additional investments from the market, and not from the state budget;
- the form of joint-stock companies, by definition, implies broad economic independence. In a joint-stock company with any percentage of the state’s participation in its capital, even with a 100% formal owner of the property, the joint-stock company itself, and not the state is formal owner of the property. Economic independence is a condition for the high commercialization of its activities;
- corporatization involves the transformation of pre-existing organizational structures and competencies of governing bodies of a legal entity.
I believe the answer is: concluded that to some extent the speech reflected the speaker's true beliefs.
During debate like this, it is very common that a certain individual would be assigned to defend the view/belief that does not aligned with their own. Since their unconscious reject that idea, it is very common for them to make incongruency in their speech when defending the view/belief.
