<u>K</u><u>e</u><u>n</u><u>y</u><u>a</u><u> </u><u>was</u><u> </u><u>collonised</u><u> </u><u>b</u><u>y</u><u> </u><u>the</u><u> </u><u>British</u><u> </u><u>empire</u><u> </u><u>to protect its commercial interests in East Africa</u><u>.</u><u> </u><u>The</u><u> </u><u>reasons</u><u> </u><u>w</u><u>e</u><u>r</u><u>e</u><u> </u><u>mainly economic, political and religious</u>
Hope this helped you- have a good day bro cya)
All decisions involve trade-offs. Trade offs are the alternatives one gives up whenever one chooses one course of action leaving out out all other alternative courses of action.
Trade-offs are practically found in all economic decisions. For instance, when one chooses to take a special cup of cappuccino for $330, this excludes spending this amount of cash on tea or fruit juice. When you choose to buy an expensive piece of art, you will have to spend more money towards maintenance and security of the painting. If you decide to work in a far-off city due to better pay there, you spend less time with family and friends in your hometown.
Answer:
To put a little bit of context , Hamilton advocated for the creation of the national bank. This advocacy was pretty polarizing at that time. Some people support him, some people don't,
Explanation:
There are several reasons that made those people supported Hamilton:
1. Ability to control Inflation.
Not all people understood the concept of inflation at that time. But Hamilton and other supporters of the national bank realized that they need a centralized institution that has the authority to control the money supply and interest rates such as the national bank.
2. Controlling the local bank.
without the existence of the national bank, the local banks will left with too much power. For example, if those local banks wants to massively increase the interest rates for loan , there will be nothing that local people do could stop it.
3. Investment policies
National banks increase the chance of the government in obtaining their monetary budget. The can do this by selling government-owned securities.
It is not fair in my opinion, because the 50 year old has already lived a life, where as the 20 year old hasn't. The 50 year old has already has done things in his or her life that the 20 year old won't be able to do. For example, when the 20 year old gets out of jail he will be 80 meaning he may never experience things such as getting married, having children, and etc. The 50 year old may have already done those things in his or her life, so it is very unfair to the 20 year old. The sentencing is also unfair due to the fact being both of them committed the crime and should have the same time served in jail.
Hint: that the last sentence might not hold up due to the fact of what he or she did and it pertains to how serve the crime was for both parties. Such as one person killed someone, while the other one didn't pull the trigger but was an accomplice or new about the killing. So it really depends on the crime or crimes the person has committed.
Answer:
The answer is in the 'necessary and proper clause' of the U.S. Constitution, better known as the 'elastic clause,' which allows Congress to make laws it needs to carry out its own powers.
Explanation: