Answer:
it called study of culture
Explanation:
you said it
Answer:
27
Explanation:
9+9+9=27
also this is supposed to be in math, please mark brainest if can :)
<u>Mixed Economy:</u>
The mixed economy in economics cohabits with the government's intervention in the market systems of allocating resources, trade, and commerce.
When a government gets involved to undermine free markets through the establishment of state-owned companies (such as public healthcare or education), legislation, incentives, tariffs, and taxation policies, it may create a mixed economy.
It is structured among true capitalism and true socialism, with a certain number of free-market components and social democratic elements. It is the combination of the aspects of capitalism and socialism.
Mixed economies generally preserve private control and ownership over most production processes but often regulated by the state. These type of economies are socializing industries which are considered essential.
Even if some economists question the economic consequences of different mixed modes of economics, they are all common in historical and contemporary economies.
The best option in terms of El Nino would be "<span>the cyclical warming of the Pacific Ocean near the equator," since this weather event is "expected" practically at the same time every year. </span>
<em> A.) Improving Roman infrastructures.</em>
<em>When they were moving to another location Roman soldiers did not have to improve on other Roman infrastructures they came upon along the way, because the building of the infrastructures was not organized by the Roman troops, more so they were organized by an architect and the architect's workers.</em>
<em>The reason I also chose A was because the Roman troops traveled in their groups and whenever they were injured it was up to them to man the camp hospitals to heal the wounded. Also recruiting more soldiers along the way was also very helpful to the Roman legion and allowed a much broader amount of soldiers that could be used for taking over land. Not to mention that soldiers (traveling strictly inside their troops) were responsible for feeding themselves (what I'm saying is that the troops were responsible for cooking and feeding each other I just used "themselves" as the word to describe it).</em>
<em>Since Roman soldiers traveled in groups they did not (I'm assuming here I don't know for sure) take women or other people along with them and they only took the amount of soldiers that were assigned by their higher ups. In other words Roman soldiers were really only expected to do as they were ordered to (in modern times any disobedience to what they were ordered to do would have resulted in them having it put on a disaplinary record, but they did not do that sort of thing during Roman times meaning that they punished the soldiers in ways that I don't factually now about). Basically the key importance in the Roman soldier was to carry out the order he received and complete the order quickly and efficiently. However, they did recruit soldiers along the way as they were instructed and that was to help them benefit for taking over land. The commanding officer was the one who told the Roman soldiers what to do when they were traveling (simple tasks, not the task assigned by the current ruler) and the soldiers were expected to complete it. A few of the tasks assigned by the commanding officer could have been to cook, preform healing measures, and recruit more soldiers.</em>
<em>Hope this helps.</em>
<em>-Northstar</em>
