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>
Communism and socialism are very similar. I'd say that the circumstance that does not apply to both of these concepts is nationalized services such as electric, water and health care, whereas redistribution of wealth from individual income, state run industries and care, and <span>adherence to the nation’s one political party do.</span>
I believe the answer to this question would be P<span>hytoplankton</span>
Answer:
The American Expeditionary Force, Siberia (AEF in Siberia)
Explanation:
