The answer to this question is A ( Divergence)
Answer:
In hindsight, <u>from the Gilded Age </u><u>monopolists </u><u>perspective they would say that they have pushed too far with manipulation of prices and thus brought negative reaction and counter measures from the general public.</u> In particular, farmers in the Western country demanded that the government set maximum prices on railroads because monopolist had uncontrolled pricing power. Through the Granger movement they achieved passing of some of the ‘Granger Laws’ and set pricing limit on some services.
This concerned other industries as well. For example, the famous <u>Robber baron</u> Vanderbilt was competing with steamboat monopoly that controlled transportation between New York City and Albany. Using populist rhetoric and peoples line to bring down monopolies, he was trying to pave the way for his own business. Meanwhile, <u>the monopolistic Hudson River Steamboat Association end up paying him a great amount of money so that he would stop doing it</u>.
Answer:
B.
Explanation:
Based on the information provided within the question in regards to the situation it can be said that one quality associated with traditional masculinity that is harmful to men is the idea that men are superior. This is actually harmful in different ways to all genders, but when dealing on a man's perspective it puts pressure on men to be superior or face discrimination for not being masculine enough in the eyes of those around you. Which in many ways leads men into lives of fake behaviors and stress.
Explanation:
<em>Any</em><em> </em><em>four</em><em> </em><em>differences</em><em> </em><em>between</em><em> </em><em>stupa</em><em> </em><em>style</em><em> </em><em>and</em><em> </em><em>shikhar</em><em> </em><em>style</em><em> </em><em>are</em><em>;</em>
- <em>Stupa</em><em> </em><em>style</em><em> </em><em>are</em><em> </em><em>mainly</em><em> </em><em>a</em><em> </em><em>Buddhist</em><em> </em><em>style</em><em> </em><em>of</em><em> </em><em>architecture</em><em> </em><em>and</em><em> </em><em> </em><em>Shikhar</em><em> </em><em>style</em><em> </em><em>are</em><em> </em><em>mainly</em><em> </em><em>style</em><em> </em><em>of</em><em> </em><em>architecture</em><em> </em><em>of</em><em> </em><em>hindu</em><em>.</em>
- <em>The</em><em> </em><em>stupa</em><em> </em><em>have</em><em> </em><em>single</em><em> </em><em>towering</em><em> </em><em>but</em><em> </em><em>shikhar</em><em> </em><em>style</em><em> </em><em>has</em><em> </em><em>many</em><em> </em><em>towering</em><em>. </em>
- <em>Various</em><em> </em><em>Buddhist</em><em> </em><em>statues</em><em> </em><em>are</em><em> </em><em>kept</em><em> </em><em>in</em><em> </em><em>it</em><em> </em><em>where</em><em> </em><em>as</em><em> </em><em>various</em><em> </em><em>gods</em><em> </em><em>atatues</em><em> </em><em>are</em><em> </em><em>kept</em><em> </em><em>in</em><em> </em><em>shikhar</em><em> </em><em>style</em><em>. </em>
- <em>Most</em><em> </em><em>Buddhist</em><em> </em><em>use</em><em> </em><em>it</em><em> </em><em>to</em><em> </em><em>meditate</em><em> </em><em>and</em><em> </em><em>perform</em><em> </em><em>religious</em><em> </em><em>performance</em><em> </em><em>whereas</em><em> </em><em>hindus</em><em> </em><em>use</em><em> </em><em>the</em><em> </em><em>shikhar</em><em> </em><em>style</em><em> </em><em>architecture</em><em> </em><em>for</em><em> </em><em>performing</em><em> </em><em>various</em><em> </em><em>religious</em><em> </em><em>performance</em><em>. </em>
<em>hope</em><em> </em><em>it helps</em><em>.</em><em>.</em><em>.</em><em>.</em>
<em>Respect</em><em> </em><em>Nepalese</em><em> </em><em>architecture</em><em>.</em><em>.</em><em> </em><em>and</em><em> </em><em>love</em><em> </em><em>it</em><em>.</em>
This is the best I got: The best way to prove that slavery was in fact an inefficient market because the assumptions of Fogel and Engerman are weakly based and in some cases rather short-sighted.