Answer:
The answer is diminishing marginal utility
Explanation:
Economists have identified a concept known as the law of diminishing marginal utility. It describes how the first unit of consumption of a good or service carries more utility than later units. ... Marginal utility is useful in explaining how consumers make choices to get the most benefit from their limited budgets
Well they made a treaty to keep their land, but I'm pretty sure the U.S just pushed them farther and farther. Look into the trail of tears.
Answer:
C
Explanation:
the frame work of government
I’ll give you two:
Yes: The “War” on the Indians was not a traditional war of declaration but of skirmishes. When wagon trains of people headed West Indians would commonly target them for raids and pillage, so along many routes forts where built and patrols would try and make sure they were safe. If the problem became worse the local garrison would find the tribe and come with a list of demands. Most of the time they were fired upon arrival out of fear or anger. This would lead to a small battle or skirmish which would likely cause collateral damage.
No: The wars raged in the west against the Indians were that of near genocide, and to call it anything but is misleading. To claim that the slaughter of hundreds of innocent people was a “battle” is absurd and shouldn’t be considered. Though in films that depict such events are dramatized and inaccurate, situations much like those were taking place around the west yearly.
