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.
It was mainly around the years of 1630 I believe.
Idk what A B C and D answers are but I know that the answer to the question is Texas (not sure about territory tho)
The discovery of gold and mining on the West led to a railroad boost as more and more people were moving there in the hopes of becoming rich. The growth the West was experiencing ultimately led to the Federal Government pressuring the Nez Perce (natives of Wallowa Valley) to give up their homeland to them. Natives followed their tribe leader, Chief Joseph, and refused to be forced onto a reservation, so they walked for 1400 miles attempting to reach Canada, but meeting their sad end when they encountered the US Army and battled them in the Nez Perce War.
Answer:
I believe Philosophers.
Explanation:
I just learned this in class, and if you need further proof can link a text document, or show a screenshot of my explanation.
