Typically changing prices only affect supply and demand when one creates artificial demand for it. In almost any cases, it is typically the supply and demand that affects the price changes.
We must firstly understand how supply and demand affect changing prices before we can understand the opposite effect. For example, if there is 100 units, and there are only 50 buyers, the supply is more than the demand. To generate artificial demand therefore, the supplier may lower the prices in an effort to sell off all units. On the other hand, if there is 100 units, but there are more than 100 buyers, than the supplier may raise the prices. This lowers the demand for the product as well as maximizing profits. This example assumes that there is only one supplier of the unit that is in demand.
If however, the supplier has competitors within the field (and is not bound by law to set a certain rate), they may change the prices to be lower than their competitors, in an effort to increase more demand for the prices. It would artificially drive down prices, thereby making profits less. If competitors are not able to survive with less profit and/or be able to lower their own prices, they would be forced to go out of business, either by closing or selling their shops. In turn, when the original company buys up their competitors assets, they then hold a monopoly or close to a monopoly of the given field. This allows them to artificially change the price on their own discretion, typically known for the term <em>price-gouging</em>. Historically in the United States, this has occurred, especially in the oil industry, but price-gouging of many consumer necessities have been banned and a official rate has been set for them.
Essentially, in a true supply and demand, changing a price to be higher than market value may lead to a lower demand, and therefore a surplus of the product, which leads to a artificial low price, while changing a price to be below market value may generate higher demand, which in turn leads to a artificial high price.
~
American Indians occupied Alcatraz Island in 1969 as a show of protest against the United States's constant choice to overlook or misrecognize rights and responsibilities set by treaties between tribes and the US government. Additionally (and more importantly) it was a retaliation against the theft of tribal land by the federal government. Protesters believed that if the federal government could illicitly occupy tribal lands, tribal members could just the same occupy federal lands.
The Occupation of Alcatraz was led by the Indians of All Tribes (IAT) as a form of inter-tribal solidarity. It preceded the more famous occupation of Wounded Knee in South Dakota during the early 1970s. That protest was organized primarily by the American Indian Movement (AIM).
I believe the correct answer is A
There was a lot of public discussion in the States over the Constitution's ratification procedure. Nine of the thirteen State legislatures needed to ratify it in order for it to go into force; unanimity was not necessary.
First, three-fourths of state conventions or state legislatures must support each amendment. Getting many states to concur on a long-lasting amendment to the Constitution is exceedingly challenging.
However, it wouldn't be until 1790 that the Constitution would eventually be accepted and ratified by all states. Roadblocks included disagreements about the delegates' authority, anti-federalist phobias, and the absence of a Bill of Rights. However, the new administration's concessions and pledges ultimately resulted in a solution.
To learn more about ratification
brainly.com/question/28246915
#SPJ1
Look it up and you will find it
