Answer:
The Frankfurt National Assembly was at long last ready to embrace a proposed constitution for Germany on March 28, 1849. This report accommodated general document, parliamentary government, and an inherited head. Germany was to have a unified monetary and customs system yet would keep up the inward self-rule of the constituent German states.
Explanation:
A parliamentary parliament met in Frankfurt in March 1848 at the prompting of liberal pioneers from all the German states (Austria also included), and it required the election of a National assembly. The races were appropriately held, however the discretionary laws and techniques differed impressively from state to state, and on May 18 the National assembly met in the Church of St. Paul (Paulskirche) in Frankfurt. Moderate non-conformists held a lion's share in the assembly, however the whole political range was spoken to among its delegates. The liberal Heinrich von Gagern was chosen leader of the parliament.
The Anglo-Zanzibar War was the shortest war
The important natural resource in West Africa that the Songhai Empire controlled was salt.
A.) Salt mines in the sahara desert is the answer.
Communities with war industries experienced an immediate labor surplus when those industries closed down, and the large numbers of returning soldiers added to the unemployment problem.
As I understand it, Laissez-faire ideology maintains that the "free market" is the best way to determine what businesses can and should do. This means that businesses, in competition with one another, should be free to determine their paths free from any government rules or regulations. The belief is that the competition among various businesses will ultimately result in the best outcomes for society in general - Adam Smith's "invisible hand". As part of this philosophy, workers should also be free to compete with each other and choose to work wherever they wish and this process will also result in the best results for the workers as well.
However, isn't there a huge assumption in this philosophy? Doesn't the whole justification of this belief depends on the condition that there is perfect competition and that any company and any worker have the equal ability to compete with one another?
What if there is no perfect competition? What if some companies have advantages - due to any of a whole array of reasons - that place them in a non-competitive position vis a vis their competitors? Without perfect competition then other companies are not necessarily able to compete with other companies that have certain advantages. If such a situation exists, then advantaged companies may have the ability to pursue a course that results in their private benefit, but not necessarily to the benefit of society as a whole. The same would apply to workers in that reduced competition among companies would result in decreased leverage for potential employees.
To recap, if the Laissez-faire ideology maintains the best economic policy for society as a whole, and it depends on there being perfect competition on an ongoing basis with minimal government intervention, doesn't it fall apart if there is less than the perfect competition?
