One of the main reasons why government officials allowed monopolies to operate without strong regulations during the gilded age was because <em>"</em><span><em>They believed monopolies were the most successful way for businesses to make a profit"</em> and because many legislators were corrupted. </span>
In WW1, the Japanese army only had to clean up what it could get from the German colonial possessions. Tsingtao was its biggest engagement and went well. It had not cost the lives of countless Japanese soldiers.
Contrast that to WW2, where you have an army that has been fighting in China since 1931 and then was thrust into the jungles of southeast Asia and the Pacific in a bitter fight for survival against the British and Americans. When you have spilled your blood, you are less predisposed to the gallantries of "civilized" fighting.
<span>And then you have the precedent of these exact same foes having turned down Japan's </span>Racial Equality Proposal<span> in 1920. The Japanese understood that the westerners were still looking at them as inferior. That resentment had time to fester in the intervening 20 years, among the ranks of the Japanese army officers.</span>
<span>Last but not least, in the interwar years the entire world saw a slide to totalitarianism, with Japan being no exception
</span>
Answer: Slavery in the Western Territories. To many nineteenth century Americans, the expansion of slavery into Western territories caused a great deal of controversy. ... The federal government, hoping to prevent a civil war, temporarily resolved the issue with compromises.
Explanation:
The government has continued to pursue antitrust prosecutions since World War II. The Federal Trade Commission and the Antitrust Division of the Justice Department watch for potential monopolies or act to prevent mergers that threaten to reduce competition so severely that consumers could suffer. Four cases show the scope of these efforts:
In 1945, in a case involving the Aluminum Company of America, a federal appeals court considered how large a market share a firm could hold before it should be scrutinized for monopolistic practices. The court settled on 90 percent, noting "it is doubtful whether sixty or sixty-five percent would be enough, and certainly thirty-three percent is not."
In 1961, a number of companies in the electrical equipment industry were found guilty of fixing prices in restraint of competition. The companies agreed to pay extensive damages to consumers, and some corporate executives went to prison.
In 1963, the U.S. Supreme Court held that a combination of firms with large market shares could be presumed to be anti-competitive. The case involved Philadelphia National Bank. The court ruled that if a merger would cause a company to control an undue share of the market, and if there was no evidence the merger would not be harmful, then the merger could not take place.
In 1997, a federal court concluded that even though retailing is generally unconcentrated, certain retailers such as office supply "superstores" compete in distinct economic markets. In those markets, the merger of two substantial firms would be anti-competitive, the court said. The case involved a home office supply company, Staples, and a building supply company, Home Depot. The planned merger was dropped.
the answer is a. 7
there are 7 continents in the word
- south america
- north america
- antartica
- africa
- asia
- europe
- australia
hope this helps.......:)
