Globalization must be expected to influence the distribution of income as well as its level. So far as the distribution of income between countries is concerned, standard theory would lead one to expect that all countries will benefit. Economists have long preached that trade is mutually beneficial, and most of us believe that the experience of widespread growth alongside rapidly growing trade in the postwar period serves to substantiate that. Similarly most FDI goes where a multinational has intellectual capital that can contribute something to the local economy, and is therefore likely to be mutually beneficial to investor and recipient. And a flow of capital that finances a real investment is again likely to benefit both parties, since the yield on the investment is expected to be higher than the rate of interest the borrower has to pay, while that rate of interest is also likely to be higher than the lender could expect at home since otherwise there would have been no incentive to send it abroad. Loose talk about free trade making the rich countries richer and poor countries poorer finds no support in economic analysis.
Answer:
One example of how contact between Native Americans and Europeans brought changes to Native American societies is with the introduction of the horse made the Native Americans more mobile as compared to their pre-Columbian lifestyle. For example, the Plains Indians now expanded their buffalo hunting since they could cover more territory. The Native Americans had very few beasts of burden like horses prior to European contact.
Explanation:
Answer:
the answer is C (Jane McManus)
Explanation:
welp on top of taking notes after i went to check answers and i got 100
Bill English is the new prime minister of New Zealand
Answer:
Play cards, workout, etc..
