Answer:
The correct answer is D. The onset of the Great Depression came as a considerable shock to the conventional wisdom of economics at that time and opened the door for critiques of mainstream thought by economists like John Maynard Keynes.
Explanation:
The Great Depression was a recession that followed the Stock Market Crash on October 29, 1929. From the United States, it spread rapidly to Europe and other parts of the world, with devastating effects. International trade fell sharply, as did personal income, tax revenue, prices and profits. This affected cities all over the world, not least those who relied on heavy industry. Construction stopped in several countries, farms and other agricultural areas as the price of their harvests fell by between 40 and 60 percent, and the demand for miners and forestry workers fell sharply while there were few other employment options. The Great Depression ended at different times in different countries; the majority of countries affected set up different aid programs to cope with the crisis.
The Great Depression was not a sudden collapse; the decline came progressively for a period of three years and reached its absolute bottom in March 1933. In early 1930, the credit was large and was available for low prices, but was exploited by few because many households could not take on more debt. Car sales fell below the level of 1928 at the end of May 1930. Wages remained at a stable level until they began to decline in 1931. Circumstances were worst in agricultural areas, where prices of commodities fell, and in the mining and forest industry, where unemployment was high and there were get job opportunities. The downturn in the US industry began the downturn in most other countries; however, internal weaknesses or strengths in the various countries determined how severely affected they were by the crisis.
Answer:
B.to keep deities close to the people of Greece
Explanation:
Many countries around the world took different decisions during wartime. Some have been more brutal and difficult than we could have imagined. But in this situation that the Armenians faced, political events also had an effect. If you really want to get the right answer, you have to turn your perspective to both sides. Because both sides see themselves as justified in this event in history. And indeed, both sides have their faults and their justifications. In 1919, two American diplomats who wanted to investigate the event impartially visited the region. Their names were Emory Niles and Arthur Sutherland, and their view of the region was that both sides were right. Among the statements they wrote, it was written that the Armenians formed gangs against the Turks and plundered the Turkish villages in the region. But they also wrote that "Turkish soldiers were displaying a bad attitude towards Armenian civilians. According to the Turks, the reason for this was that the Armenians caused unrest in the region and took part in gang actions against the Turks. So the soldiers had to take control of the area. But when we look further into the past, we see that Armenians and Turks lived in peace in the empire. Even Armenian representatives took part in the Ottoman parliament in the 19th century. The reason why 2 communities that lived in harmony are so angry with each other is that foreign countries provoke the region to annex the region. We know that in the first world war, Russia wanted to invade the region. We also know that the Russians want to include the Orthodox Armenians in the region among themselves. It would not be difficult to conclude that the Russians formed gangs from the Armenians in the region and provoked them against the Kurdish and Turkish villages in the region. If this is indeed true, we would conclude that both parties are right in their own way.
Answer:
Explanation:
founded in 1607, was the first successful permanent English settlement in what would become the United States. The settlement thrived for nearly 100 years as the capital of the Virginia colony; it was abandoned after the capital moved to Williamsburg in 1699
The literature on the consequences of the Reformation shows a variety of short- and long-run effects, including Protestant-Catholic differences in human capital, economic development, competition in media markets, political economy, and anti-Semitism, among others.
