Answer:
1. New markets - international expansion offers a chance to conquer new territories and reach more of these consumers, thus increasing sales.
2. Diversification - companies can utilize international markets to introduce unique products and services, which can help maintain a positive revenue stream.
3. Access to talent - Another top benefit of going global is the opportunity to access to new talent pools. International labor can offer companies unique advantages in terms of increased productivity, advanced language skills, diverse educational backgrounds and more.
4. Competitive advantage - Companies also choose international expansion to gain a competitive edge over their opponents. International expansion can help companies acquire access to new technologies and industry ecosystems, which may significantly improve their operations.
5. Foreign Investment opportunities - companies considering international expansion shouldn’t forget about the additional investment opportunities that foreign markets can offer. For instance, many firms are able to develop new resources and forge important connections by operating in global markets.
Hope this helps!!
Have a nice day :)
Explanation:
It would be good to know the context of your question. When you say "based on the passage," perhaps you could attach a screen shot of the passage you're looking at.
Nevertheless, even without such context, I would lean toward saying the answer is that "the Soviet government would do whatever it could to stay in power." I'm guessing you're talking about events as the Soviet Union was nearing its dissolution and Boris Yeltsin was leading Russia in a move to declare its own sovereignty separate from the USSR. The Soviet leadership did not give in to that movement willingly.
Answer:
"Justice decree may not change the heart, but they can restrain the heartless" these words by Martin Luther King Jr. reflects the conditions prevalent at the time in the United States. These words were used to signify the relevance of the Judicial decision in the fight for civil rights. He accepted that these decrees would not install morality. But the scope of regulating the behavior would be widened. He stressed the role of legislative orders and judicial decrees to support African Americans against the prejudice and violence, they were facing.
There have always been conflicts between individual rights and national security interests in democracies. Limits on civil liberties during wartime, including restrictions on free speech, public assembly, and mass detentions, have been the most serious threats to individual freedom. Even in peacetime, counter-terrorist measures including profiling, detention, and exclusion, along with the use of national identification cards, have raised concerns about racism, constitutional violations, and the loss of privacy. With the passage of new anti-terrorist laws after September 11, 2001, these tensions have increased. Supporters of broader governmental powers insist that they are part of the increased security measures necessary to safeguard national security. In contrast, many civil rights groups fear that the infringement upon individual rights is another step in the erosion of democratic civil society.
Wartime measures. The severest restrictions on civil liberties have occurred in times of war. In September 1862, during the American Civil War, President Abraham Lincoln (1809–1865) suspended the right of habeas corpus in order to allow federal authorities to arrest and detain suspected Confederate sympathizers without arrest warrants or speedy trials. Well aware of the drastic nature of such a step, Lincoln justified it as a necessary wartime measure. After the United States Supreme Court found Lincoln's abrogation of habeas corpus an unconstitutional intrusion on Congressional authority, Congress itself ratified the measure by passing the Habeas Corpus Act in September 1863. Through 1864, about 14,000 people were arrested under the act; about one in seven were detained at length in federal prisons, most on allegations of offering aid to the Confederacy but others on corruption and fraud charges.
Read more: http://www.faqs.org/espionage/In-Int/Intelligence-and-Democracy-Issues-and-Conflicts.html#ixzz4XX37pHRv
the speaker of the house does not have to be an elected member of the house of reresentitives and because the speaker is next to become president it has more power than the president of the senate
