Answer:
Answer is in explanation
Explanation:
In a command economy, the government determines what is produced, how it is produced, and how it is distributed. Private enterprise does not exist in a command economy. The government employs all workers and unilaterally determines their wages and job duties. Some advantages can be less inequality because the government controls the means of production in a command economy, it determines who works where and for how much pay. This power structure contrasts sharply with a free market economy, in which private companies control the means of production and hire workers based on business needs, paying them wages set by invisible market forces. Low Unemployment Levels, Unlike the invisible hand of the free market, which cannot be manipulated by a single company or individual, a command economy government can set wages and job openings to create the unemployment rate and wage distribution that it sees fit. Disadvantages can be Lack of Competition Inhibits Innovation, Critics argue that the inherent lack of competition in command economies hinders innovation and keeps prices from resting at an optimal level for consumers. Although those who favor government control criticize private firms that esteem profit above all else, it is undeniable that profit is a motivator and drives innovation. At least partly for this reason, many advancements in medicine and technology have come from countries with free market economies, such as the United States and Japan. Inefficiency, Efficiency is also compromised when the government acts as a monolith, controlling every aspect of a country's economy. The nature of competition forces private companies in a free market economy to minimize red tape and keep operating and administrative costs to a minimum. If they get too bogged down with these expenses, they earn lower profits or need to raise prices to meet expenses. Ultimately, they are driven out of the market by competitors capable of operating more efficiently.
Answer:
<u>(2) development of unified resistance movements among the Native Americans</u>
Explanation:
Because of the European way of using the land and limited food sources, mass migration to North America created tension between the invaders and the natives. Canadian historian Jan K. Style explains that there were 30,000 Narragansett in Massachusetts in the 17th century. Their chief , "sensing danger ... sought to expand his alliance with the Mohicans to create a general Indian resistance movement.
His efforts to form a united Native American front have failed. In 1643, in a tribal war, he was captured by the chief of the Mohegan tribe, who handed him over to the English as a rebel.
This illustrates not only the ongoing clashes between the invading colonists and the indigenous population, but also the murderous rivalry and treachery among the tribes, which existed even before the white man arrived in North America at all. The British, in their wars against the French for colonial domination of North America, had some tribes on their side, while others supported the French. No matter which side lost, all the tribes involved paid a losing price.
Answer:
I think it's B hopefully it will be useful
Me das mas información porfavor?
<span>Southern buffalo herds were huge part of living for the American Indians and not just an animal. When the outsiders who were given lands by the government got migrated to the place, they looked at the buffaloes for hunting and sport. So eventually the factor that contributed to the destruction of southern buffalo herds is that trainloads of tourists killed buffalo purely for sport.</span>
