Incas were inhabiting parts of present-day Ecuador, Peru, Chile, Bolivia, and Argentina
Explanation:
- It stretched along the Pacific coast and the Andes mountain range over 4000 km from present-day Ecuador to Chile, covering 950,000 square kilometers.
- The empire included parts of Ecuador, Peru, Bolivia, Argentina and Chile.
- The capital was Cusco. According to legend, there were 13 Incas kings, but for lack of evidence the first 8 were considered mythical, they were probably chiefs.
Learn more on Incas on
brainly.com/question/1563193
brainly.com/question/484366
brainly.com/question/1831376
brainly.com/question/3897110
#learnwithBrainly
The new Amendment that was prompted by the Progressive movements was the 19th Amendments
Explanation
The Progressive movement was a reform group in the late 19th century through 20th century where intellectuals and social reformers in the United States advocated for issues in economic, politics and cultural questions. The group believed that there was not to create a new industrial age. <u>Their main focus included regulation of business, reforming government, improving working condition and health, working up the women’s right and improving the conversation of natural resources.</u> The success of the group was that it brought efficiency to government, initiated an equal field for business and increased the political power of ordinary citizens especially the women.
horizontal currents movimg northward or southward may carry warmed or cooled water for very long distance
Answer:
Firms are said to be in perfect competition when the following conditions occur: (1) many firms produce identical products; (2) many buyers are available to buy the product, and many sellers are available to sell the product; (3) sellers and buyers have all relevant information to make rational decisions about the product being bought and sold; and (4) firms can enter and leave the market without any restrictions—in other words, there is free entry and exit into and out of the market.
Explanation:
A perfectly competitive firm is known as a price taker, because the pressure of competing firms forces them to accept the prevailing equilibrium price in the market. If a firm in a perfectly competitive market raises the price of its product by so much as a penny, it will lose all of its sales to competitors. When a wheat grower, as discussed in the Bring it Home feature, wants to know what the going price of wheat is, he or she has to go to the computer or listen to the radio to check. The market price is determined solely by supply and demand in the entire market and not the individual farmer. Also, a perfectly competitive firm must be a very small player in the overall market, so that it can increase or decrease output without noticeably affecting the overall quantity supplied and price in the market.
A perfectly competitive market is a hypothetical extreme; however, producers in a number of industries do face many competitor firms selling highly similar goods, in which case they must often act as price takers. Agricultural markets are often used as an example. The same crops grown by different farmers are largely interchangeable. According to the United States Department of Agriculture monthly reports, in 2015, U.S. corn farmers received an average price of $6.00 per bushel and wheat farmers received an average price of $6.00 per bushel. A corn farmer who attempted to sell at $7.00 per bushel, or a wheat grower who attempted to sell for $8.00 per bushel, would not have found any buyers. A perfectly competitive firm will not sell below the equilibrium price either. Why should they when they can sell all they want at the higher price? Other examples of agricultural markets that operate in close to perfectly competitive markets are small roadside produce markets and small organic farmers.
Answer:
World War II would at least would have been averted in the European Sector.
Explanation:
When we look at the European theatre, we typically look towards Germany as being the aggressor state. Why did Germany fall into disarray and appeared as a militaristic totalitarian regime?
The first event we must take a look at is the "Treaty of Versailles". The Treaty of Versailles forced Germany to pay billions of marks in compensation to many of the victorious Allied states, as well as relinquish their territories and colonies. This forced Germany to print trillions of marks in hopes of paying the debt, which caused the mark to lose face value. With large amounts of money in circulation, and nothing to hold the face value of the mark afloat, the money became essentially worthless. Coupled with the Great Depression, many German families struggled to even obtain the bare minimum to survive.
The failure of the democratic German government to be able to solve this problem saw to the people looking for other leaders, and leaders such as Hitler and the Nazi party became popular as they promised a steady economy, as well as the retake of lost territories and the strength of the Reichsmark. With such, the Nazi Party rose in prominence, and became the dominant government, bringing with it it's ulterior motive of creating a master race, and the rest is history.
The same can be said of Japan. Japan felt that it was essentially handed the short end of the stick, as it was also in the victorious Allied side, and was not given much territory for their role. This, coupled with the Great Depression, saw the rise of a militaristic government with the Emperor as a puppet head of the state, and their territorial expansion for natural resources as well as land. If there was no Great Depression, the US could of continued to prop Japan up with funding deals and loans. Without such, Japan became extremely militaristic and rampaged across the Pacific in hopes of obtaining what they could not, through war or their own territories.
~
