1answer.
Ask question
Login Signup
Ask question
All categories
  • English
  • Mathematics
  • Social Studies
  • Business
  • History
  • Health
  • Geography
  • Biology
  • Physics
  • Chemistry
  • Computers and Technology
  • Arts
  • World Languages
  • Spanish
  • French
  • German
  • Advanced Placement (AP)
  • SAT
  • Medicine
  • Law
  • Engineering
Margarita [4]
3 years ago
12

Which change took place in Texas politics after World War II

History
1 answer:
Katyanochek1 [597]3 years ago
8 0

Answer:

confused

Explanation:

You might be interested in
Before becoming President of the United States, Bush held 4 government/political offices. What were they?
Bad White [126]

Answer:

businessman, govenor of texas, advisor and speech writer in his father's campaign i think

Explanation:

5 0
3 years ago
Account for the European competition for world trade
iVinArrow [24]

European exports represented 15.2% of global exports and European imports 15.1%, making it one of the world's greatest exchange players close by the US and China.

<u>Explanation:</u>

The EU as of now has 116 exchange understandings place or during the time spent being refreshed or arranged. The EU likewise gets contribution from the general population, organizations, and non-government bodies when arranging exchange understandings or rules.

The EU underpins and guards the EU business and business by attempting to evacuate exchange boundaries with the goal that European exporters increase reasonable conditions and access to different markets.

Merchandise exchanged between the Arab world and Europe included slaves, flavors, aromas, gold, gems, calfskin products, creature skins, and extravagance materials, particularly silk. In 2018, the UK recorded a general exchange shortage with the EU of - £64 billion.

5 0
3 years ago
Which of the following is a benefit for Americans as globalization increases? lower prices for manufactured goods higher wages f
Eddi Din [679]

Answer:

The North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) among Canada, Mexico, and the United States has now been in effect for three years. Globalization advocates, including Bill Clinton, have heralded it as a major step forward for all involved, while the conservative Heritage Foundation says that under NAFTA "trade has increased, U.S. exports and employment levels have risen significantly, and the average living standards of American workers have improved."

Yet the evidence shows the opposite. First, recent research by Kate Bronfenbrenner of Cornell University confirms that globalization shifts bargaining power toward employers and against U.S. workers. Bronfenbrenner found that since the signing of NAFTA more than half of employers faced with union organizing and contract drives have threatened to close their plants in response. And 15% of firms involved in union bargaining have actually closed part or all of their plants—three times the rate during the late 1980s.

Second, NAFTA has caused large U.S. job losses, despite claims by the White House that the United States has gained 90,000 to 160,000 jobs due to trade with Mexico, and by the U.S. Trade Representative that U.S. jobs have risen by 311,000 due to greater trade with Mexico and Canada. The liberal Economic Policy Institute (EPI) points out that the Clinton administration looks only at the effects of exports by the United States, while ignoring increased imports coming from our neighbors. EPI estimates that the U.S. economy has lost 420,000 jobs since 1993 due to worsening trade balances with Mexico and Canada.

Research on individual companies yields similar evidence of large job losses. In 1993 the National Association of Manufacturers released anecdotes from more than 250 companies who claimed that they would create jobs in the United States if NAFTA passed. Public Citizen's Global Trade Watch surveyed 83 of these same companies this year. Trade Watch found that 60 had broken their earlier promises to create jobs or expand U.S. exports, while seven had kept them and 16 were unable or unwilling to provide data.

Among the promise-breakers were Allied Signal, General Electric, Mattel, Proctor and Gamble, Whirlpool, and Xerox, all of whom have laid off workers due to NAFTA (as certified by the Department of Labor's NAFTA Trade Adjustment Assistance program). GE, for example, testified in 1993 that sales to Mexico "could support 10,000 [U.S.] jobs for General Electric and its suppliers," but in 1997 could demonstrate no job gains due to NAFTA.

To see why, let's review recent trends in global trade. At a swift pace in recent decades, barriers to international trade, investment, and production have fallen. Transport and telecommunications have become much cheaper and faster, greatly improving the ability of multinationals to manage globally dispersed activities. Tariff and nontariff barriers have been removed through international agreements, including NAFTA, the European Union, and the World Trade Organization, while the proposed Multilateral Agreement on Investment is looming.

Since the 1970s trade in goods and services has been increasing much faster than world output, the opposite of what happened in the 1950s and 1960s. From 1970 through the mid-1990s, world output grew at a rate of 3% per year, trade volume at 5.7% per year.

For the United States, the ratio of exports and imports to gross domestic product (GDP) changed little over most of the present century, but from 1972 through 1995 it rose from 11% to 24%. By 1990, 36% of U.S. imports came from developing countries compared with 14% in 1970. For the European Union, imports from developing nations grew from 5% to 12% over the same period (the proportions would have been much higher if trade between European nations was excluded, just as interstate trade is excluded from U.S. foreign trade figures).

Multinationals' use of developing nations for production is substantial and growing, especially in Latin America and Asia (excluding Japan). By 1994 it accounted for a third of all trade between U.S. multinational parents and their affiliates, and at least 40% of their worldwide employment.

3 0
3 years ago
Read 2 more answers
Queen liliuokalani attempted to rid her people of american influence in the late 1800s. where did she rule?
ivann1987 [24]
<span>Queen Liliuokalani who ruled the Hawaii tried to remove the American influence in her people in the period late 1800s. She had troubles in her monarchy and tried returning to the power with a plan but the many opposed it especially sugarcane planters and formed a new government combining with America.</span>
3 0
3 years ago
Read 2 more answers
Which era spanned from 1750 C.E. to 1945 C.E.
defon

The Modern Era spanned at this time. Hope this helps.

8 0
3 years ago
Other questions:
  • What were the biggest problems faced by the early Byzantine engineers, as the city of Constantinople began to grow?
    7·1 answer
  • 456 by 28 write the anwser as a mixed number
    11·1 answer
  • What were some of the obstacles that the allies forces had to overcome in order to overtake the beaches?
    6·1 answer
  • Why was embalming important to Egyptians?
    15·1 answer
  • • A source of raw materials to produce goods
    8·1 answer
  • What was the significance of the English victory of the french and Indian war?
    5·1 answer
  • How did the allies deal with the issue of war crimes ineurope
    9·1 answer
  • Ill give brain just helpppp Match the vocabulary word to the definition.
    12·1 answer
  • TEXT ANSWER
    10·1 answer
  • HELP ME OUT PLS!!!!!!!!!!
    11·1 answer
Add answer
Login
Not registered? Fast signup
Signup
Login Signup
Ask question!