Same as with Canada which is where both my grandfathers came from. Let's see how many reasons I can come up with just off the top of my head and just for those two.
- They enjoyed the freedom of the First Amendment (speech, press, religion, assembly -- Canada has the same provision) that was not granted in the country they left. They never exercised those rights, I don't think, but their children and grandchildren did.
- They were free to raise their children so that they had the chance of being productive. My father was an MD, but he owed that piece of good fortune to his father. The country from which they came would never have allowed him to get all that education.
- They were able to eventually bring their wives and children with them. There was enough money to be made, even at jobs that didn't pay much, to bring them across the Atlantic.
- They were able, once the families were here, to turn their attention to bettering their conditions. They never became rich, but no one starved either. That's more than could be said about those relatives who didn't do as they did.
- They were free to travel. They didn't do that, but their children and especially their grandchildren did. That too was very limited where they came from.
- They had medical care and good medical care which was not given to just anyone where they came from.
Answer:
Falsifiability
Explanation:
Based on the information provided within the question it can be said that the principle that is involved here is Falsifiability. This term refers to the assertion that for a hypothesis to have credibility, it has to be inherently disprovable before being accepted as a scientific hypothesis or theory. Otherwise it will not be.
Answer:
France has comparative advantage in production of wine
Austria has comparative advantage in production of rye.
4 bushels of rye for each bottle of wine
1 bottle of wine for each bushel.
b. 4 bushel of rye per bottle of wine.
Explanation:
France has comparative advantage in producing wine as it has opportunity cost of 4 bushels per bottle of wine. Austria has comparative advantage in producing bushels as it has opportunity cost of 10 bushels per bottle of wine. The both countries can gain advantage if they agree for 4 bushels per wine.
The Bureau of Competition federal agency reviews mergers and acquisitions, and challenges those that would likely lead to higher prices, fewer choices, or less innovation.
The FTC's Bureau of Competition is the section in charge of cracking down on and preventing "anticompetitive" corporate activities. This is achieved through the application of antitrust laws, examination of prospective mergers, and research into other non-merger business practices that can harm competition. Vertical constraints, which include agreements among firms at various levels of the same sector, and horizontal restrictions, which involve agreements between direct competitors, are two examples of these non-merger procedures (such as suppliers and commercial buyers).
Antitrust law enforcement is shared by the FTC and the Department of Justice. The Department of Justice's Antitrust Division has the authority to pursue both civil and criminal antitrust actions, despite the fact that the FTC is in charge of the civil enforcement of antitrust statutes.
Learn more about Bureau of Competition, here
brainly.com/question/1511727
#SPJ4
Answer:
After tax Return is $3.50
After tax rate of return is 7.00%
Explanation:
Purchase Price = $50
Price at the end of the year = $50
Dividend Received =$5
Return on share = Dividend + Gain on share price
Return on share = $5 + ( $50 - $50 )
Return on share = $5 + $0
Return on share = $5
After tax return = $5 x ( 1 - 0.3 ) = $5 x 0.7 = $3.5
Rate of return on share = ( Total return / purchase price ) x 100
Rate of return on share = ( $3.5 / $50 ) x 100
Rate of return on share = 7%
