The obvious answer would be business leaders. The reason why this is true is becaus business leaders were often the ones who were touting the ideas of social darwinism and how their company is better and will stomp out the smaller one in proper sociodarwinistic fashion.
There were positive effects as well as negative effects.<span>
</span>
Generally speaking, in a cost-benefit analysis done by a government, “cost” is defined as the negative aspect of what will happen if the government decides to go through with whatever they're debating. It's what the government will lose as a result of this action.
Answer:
b
Explanation:
this is the answer because England would profit off of the goods they made and they would get their goods from England
They probably had no other choice. During that time, it was hard to get a job with a solid pay for many people (especially immigrants). If they decided to quit, they would have to find other jobs, which probably have bad conditions as well. If they couldn’t find any good jobs, then they would basically become homeless and wouldn’t be able to pay for themselves and their families. (Back then, families were much more important.)