What do you need help with?
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.
<span>Assuming that this is referring to the same list of options that was posted before with this question, <span>the correct response would be that it had "little-to-no effect" on trade, since gold and salt in fact allowed many of these kingdoms to profit greatly.</span></span>
Answer:
The answer is below
Explanation:
The formation and development of political parties are usually a result of the decision of a group of people often referred to as CAUCUS who come together to form a political party.
This group of people or CAUCUS shares similar ideas or causes in which they are considered to favor greatly or ardent PARTISANs of such principles or political belief.
