1answer.
Ask question
Login Signup
Ask question
All categories
  • English
  • Mathematics
  • Social Studies
  • Business
  • History
  • Health
  • Geography
  • Biology
  • Physics
  • Chemistry
  • Computers and Technology
  • Arts
  • World Languages
  • Spanish
  • French
  • German
  • Advanced Placement (AP)
  • SAT
  • Medicine
  • Law
  • Engineering
GaryK [48]
3 years ago
10

How did the rise of huge industrial cartels affect free market competition?

History
1 answer:
Step2247 [10]3 years ago
7 0
<span>Cartels could fix prices and sell at a loss to strangle out competition. Then raise prices afterward which would cover all previous losses. 
They could generate income by horizontal integration which would be possibly controlling all retail sales of a certain product. 
They could also generate income through vertical integration which meant owning a large portion of the industry (possibly mining) which provided the raw material, the means of production (factories, for example), the means of transporting the product to market (rail roads for example), and even owning the means of selling the product(s) (retailing). They could set the price and costs all along the way. They could also exploit their workers by being the 'only show in town' and therefore setting wages low and working hours high. If a vertically integrated company had to show their books to government auditors they could try to make a case to show a small advantage over competitors at each level of their operation which would come out overall as a major advantage which could put others out of business. 
A couple of industries to look at would be the railroads and oil. People to research: Andrew Carnegie, J. D. Rockefeller and other industrialists/robber barons. A student may want to read the works of some of the 'muckrakers' of the era.</span><span>

</span>
You might be interested in
Why was the outcome of the election of 1912 significant?
Marysya12 [62]

Answer:

That the 1912 election registered, and inspired, fundamental changes in American politics suggests the historical significance of the Progressive Party. Not only was it the driving force of this election, but it remains the most important third party to appear on the American political landscape in the 20th century.

Explanation:

That the 1912 election registered, and inspired, fundamental changes in American politics suggests the historical significance of the Progressive Party. Not only was it the driving force of this election, but it remains the most important third party to appear on the American political landscape in the 20th century.

6 0
3 years ago
Who was the 3rd party candidate that earned a significant number of popular votes?
trapecia [35]
 Teddy Roosevelt, Progressive, 1912 (88 Electoral votes)

In the 1912 U.S. Presidential elections, former President Teddy Roosevelt emerged as the most successful third party presidential candidate in the history of the country when he bagged 88 Electoral votes and 27% of the popular vote in the election on behalf of the Progressive Party of the United States. The party was formed by Roosevelt himself when he failed to receive the nomination from the Republican Party in the 1912 Elections. However, Roosevelt lost, and the election was won by the Democratic Party's nominee, Woodrow Wilson, who went on to become the 28th President of the United States. The 1912 Presidential elections were unique in the fact that this was the last election where a candidate who was neither Republican nor Democrat came second in the election. This occurred as Teddy Roosevelt defeated Republican William Howard Taft and Socialist Eugene Debs.

6 0
3 years ago
What conclusion can be drawn about Georgia's role in the war effort for World War I?
Lunna [17]
Georgia was where most of the soldiers where trained!

If that was the appropiate answer make sure to mark as the brainliest!
-procklown
7 0
3 years ago
Read 2 more answers
PLEASE HELP. history
boyakko [2]

Answer:

native American has aggressively tried to take

6 0
3 years ago
Do you think the framers of the Constitution could have limited or banned slavery? Why or why not?
malfutka [58]

Answer: Here you go

Explanation:

The founders of the constitution were not able to ban or limit slavery at the time. The reason being that the South was not accepting of the constitution without them being able to own slaves and because of that slaves were allowed to be own till the civil war. The reason behind the South not accepting the constitution was because slaves were the driving reason the south was thriving, without slaves the souths economy would have tanked since farming was their main industry, unlike the north which was an overall industrial powerhouse.  

4 0
3 years ago
Other questions:
  • Carefully read the list below. The list are examples of?
    15·1 answer
  • Should Hillary go to prison for life?
    7·1 answer
  • Why were people so afraid of not conforming to society?
    14·1 answer
  • Why did the U.S. support the French in their quest to re-conquer Indochina?
    14·1 answer
  • Why was the "New Deal" such a new concept for the United States government?
    9·1 answer
  • What developed between the New World in the world when many native Americans begin Pershing under the encomienda system
    6·1 answer
  • World War 1 took place from ______________ to _____________, and was known during that time as the ___________________________ .
    9·1 answer
  • [HELP ASAP!!!!!!!!!!!!!!] how did land help Industrial Revolution!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
    11·1 answer
  • Bismarck went to war with who to get Holstein?
    9·1 answer
  • Describe one invention from the Han Dynasty and its importance?
    7·2 answers
Add answer
Login
Not registered? Fast signup
Signup
Login Signup
Ask question!