Answer:
The Octopus by Frank Norris ( C )
Explanation:
The octopus by Frank Norris dramatized the conflicts over land between the wheat farmers in the West ( San Joaquin valley )against the power monopolized southern and pacific railroad companies.
The dramatization by Frank Norris was expressed through the technique of literary naturalism when he wrote the novel. the conflicts were mainly over the used of lands belonging to the wheat farmers by the railroad companies for the construction and operation of the rail system transportation. The farmers wanted their land for the cultivation of wheat while the companies wanted the land for construction of rail lines .
Answer: Poor working conditions, repression by police, violence by hired bandits.
Explanation:
- During the Great Depression, there was a significant strike in the automotive industry. In addition to the daily hazards at work, accompanied by poor conditions, workers at times when they would rebel against such a condition suffered repression from police and bandits who often carried out violence against strikers. For many unions, and active involvement in them could mean the end of the business, so many business owners have made every effort to end unions or reduce their influence. During this period, the automaker, General Motors, actually experienced sales advances thanks to its aggressive reactions to the Great Depression.
- When the economy began to spiral out of control, GM cut prices, cut production of some more expensive models, and laid off vast amounts of labor. GM maintained its hold on the car market at the expense of its workers. After the layoffs of thousands, she employed many backward but did not consider the senior position and paid lower wages than before. Such circumstances have led to the dissatisfaction of many employees. There was a massive strike in the hour when workers wanted to abolish their democratic rights at all costs, organizing unions. This strike is one of the most famous in American history. The attack reduced the unification of the automobile industry in the united states, thereby improving the position of workers.
Answer:
In 1812 <u>there was</u><em><u> manufacturing in the U.S that grew a lot due to Britain winning the war.</u></em>
Explanation:
Hope this helps. Have a nice day. :)
Your answer would be
<h2>Abolitionists used powerful speeches and presentations to engage people and persuade them to join the abolitionists’ cause.</h2>
<span>Agricultural subsidies are supposed to lower food prices and help farmers. However, they don't always do either. Moreover, lower food prices and more farmers have their own social costs.
The truth is that all across the world farmers are getting more efficient and can grow and harvest more crops with fewer people. That isn't about to change any time soon, and there's very little government can do about it.
There are several ways you can go about subsidizing agriculture, for example:
<span>Direct cash payments to farmersQuotas and production controlsLabor lawsTax creditsProviding water and electricity at reduced prices</span>And so forth.
The problem is that, as time goes on, everyone gets used to the system and it gets out of whack with actual demand. For example, tobacco use has been steadily dropping, but tobacco farmers still get subsidies (either to grow or not to grow) and the Western nations grow tobacco to export (along with the health detriment, which is now hitting Africa and China).
As another example, corn is cheap, but the U.S. produces about five times as much now as it did in 1940, although the population has only doubled. As such, a lot of it is just fed to livestock. More problematically, a lot of it is exported to Mexico, where corn can be grown more cheaply, but can't be sold against subsidized American corn, which costs less.
Here in Canada, there is a quota system for dairy which means we don't produce much surplus. However, at retail, milk cost about twice here what it does in the U.S. We can't figure out how to dismantle the system so at least milk will cost about the same as it does in other countries. Trying to dismantle the system might be more expensive than leaving it in place. It might also mean more milk is produced than is consumed, which would again push the market out of whack.</span>
