I’m pretty sure it’s D good luck my luv
Answer: i think the answer is A.
protectors
Explanation:
Globalization must be expected to influence the distribution of income as well as its level. So far as the distribution of income between countries is concerned, standard theory would lead one to expect that all countries will benefit. Economists have long preached that trade is mutually beneficial, and most of us believe that the experience of widespread growth alongside rapidly growing trade in the postwar period serves to substantiate that. Similarly most FDI goes where a multinational has intellectual capital that can contribute something to the local economy, and is therefore likely to be mutually beneficial to investor and recipient. And a flow of capital that finances a real investment is again likely to benefit both parties, since the yield on the investment is expected to be higher than the rate of interest the borrower has to pay, while that rate of interest is also likely to be higher than the lender could expect at home since otherwise there would have been no incentive to send it abroad. Loose talk about free trade making the rich countries richer and poor countries poorer finds no support in economic analysis.
The Native American's used Buffalo for food, as well as for housing.
The Native American's ate almost all of the buffalo- except for the heart, as this was sacred and they buried this- and as soon as the buffalo population began to decrease, this meant that food became harder to find, which ultimately, will have lead to a number of deaths.
The Native American's also used the buffalo skin (or hide) to make the outside of their teepees, which will have kept them warm in the winter, as well as keeping them safe from the elements- therefore, as soon as the buffalo started to become rarer, this meant that they had to find other means to build new teepees.
Hope this helps :)
