The answer to this question is <span>Hedonistic calculous
An example of jeremy bentham's approach would be in the case of robbery.
Most members of the society see robbery as 'immorals' because they felt 'negative' results if that action happen to them, so they judge it as morally wrong. This sense of morality certainly wouldn't be applied in action that give 'positive result', such as working out for example</span>
1.)Because they couldn't outscore the jobs to China
2.)Slaves were free labor as opposed to cheap labor.
3.)The Government didn't care how slaves were treated.
Hope this helps :)
Stock Market Crash of 1929, the economy was horrible- banks and businesses closed, literally there was no money on the streets
Antitrust laws will not lead to a monopoly. The correct option among all the options given in the question is the first option. In some cases monopoly is also made illegal. Monopoly business is the business where there is only a single seller of a product and there are no competitors. This leads to abnormal price rise of the product in some cases.<span />
A) Little Kona has no predominant methodology as her ideal procedure relies on upon what Big Brew picks. However Big Brew dependably makes more by picking "High Price". Subsequently "High Price" is the Big Brew's predominant methodology. Realizing that Big Brew dependably picks "High Price," its predominant procedure, Little Kona picks "Enter."
b) Big Brew can consume the market and make $7 (the most extreme sum) just if Little Kona does not enter, in which case it makes zero. Yet, Little Kona can make $2 by entering the market. So Little Kona will consent to not enter just on the off chance that it is paid at any rate $2.Big Brew will pay up to $4 as with this new arrangement (Doesn't Enter, High Price), it can make $4 more than from past Nash harmony arrangement