Answer:
Almost 2.6 billion U.S. dollars was the toll revenue generated by the Panama Canal during the fiscal year 2019 (from October 2018 to September 2019), up from around 2.5 billion U.S. dollars reported a year earlier. Around 46.2 percent of that revenue was generated by tolls from container vessels
The answer is:
The following options benefit African consumers but not African farmers.
I. Subsidies to keep crop prices low
IV. Availability of imported grains
<em>Explanation:</em>
<em>If you were to subsidize to keep prices low, consumers would benefit exclusively because the would pay a fixed rate for their farm products. On the other hand farmers would be affected because we don't know many factors that would influence this decission. Some of these factors may be.</em>
<em>- Will there be a price fixed for certain products</em>
<em>- Will the grains be cash crops</em>
<em>- Will farmers be allowed to rotate crops</em>
<em>Without knowing these factors one can only assume that when you susidize a crop the conditions imposed on the farmers may or may not be ideal.</em>
<em>When it comes to the availability of imported grains, some of these grains may be even cheaper than local grains. This may have a negative effect on local farmers who cannot lower their prices at a loss. Consumers would definitely benefit by paying lower prices from imported crops.</em>
The answer to your question is true
Answer:
The Visigoths were slowly invading the Byzantine Empire.
The Byzantine Empire was slowly losing its hold over its territories.
Explanation:
In McCulloch v. Maryland (1819) the Supreme Court ruled that Congress had implied powers under the Necessary and Proper Clause
of Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution to create the Second Bank
of the United States and that the state of Maryland lacked the power to
tax the Bank. Arguably Chief Justice John Marshall's
finest opinion, McCulloch not only gave Congress broad discretionary
power to implement the enumerated powers, but also repudiated, in
ringing language, the radical states' rights arguments presented by
counsel for Maryland.
At issue in the case was the constitutionality of the act of Congress
chartering the Second Bank of the United States (BUS) in 1816. Although
the Bank was controlled by private stockholders, it was the depository
of federal funds. In addition, it had the authority to issue notes
that, along with the notes of states' banks, circulated as legal tender.
In return for its privileged position, the Bank agreed to loan the
federal government money in lieu of taxes. State banks looked on the
BUS as a competitor and resented its privileged position. When state
banks began to fail in the depression of 1818, they blamed their
troubles on the Bank. One such state was Maryland, which imposed a
hefty tax on "any bank not chartered within the state." The Bank of the
United States was the only bank not chartered within the state. When
the Bank's Baltimore branch refused to pay the tax, Maryland sued James
McCulloch, cashier of the branch, for collection of the debt. McCulloch
responded that the tax was unconstitutional. A state court ruled for
Maryland, and the court of appeals affirmed. McCulloch appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, which reviewed the case in 1819.
