Answer:
a price ceiling set below equilibrium.
Explanation:
When interpreting the description of the graph described above, we can say that the upper horizontal line represents a situation where there is a lot of demand and little supply of the same product. This situation results in excess demand and excesses of the product.
When this situation occurs, we have an example of a price ceiling established below the equilibrium point between demand and supply.
In this case, it is important to mention that the price ceiling is the term that defines the maximum price that a product can reach.
<span>Relations between the United States and Cuba had been steadily declining since Castro seized power in early 1959. U.S. officials were soon convinced that Castro’s government was too anti-American to be trusted, and they feared that he might lead Cuba into the communist bloc.</span>
What is the question you are specifically asking us? I would like to help I really do.
Hello. This question is incomplete. The full question is:
"What warrant [right] have we to take that land, which is and hath been of long time possessed [by] others . . . ? "That which is common to all is proper to none. [Native Americans] ruleth over many lands without title or property; for they enclose [fence in] no ground, neither have they cattle to maintain it. . . . And why may not Christians have liberty to go and dwell amongst them in their waste[d] lands and woods (leaving them such places as they have [fertilized] for their corn) . . . ? For God hath given to the sons of men a twofold right to the earth; there is a natural right and a civil [political] right. The first right was natural when men held the earth in common, every man sowing and feeding where he pleased. Then, as men and cattle increased, they appropriated some parcels of ground by enclosing [them as property] . . . And this in time got them a civil right."
Descreva brevemente UM argumento apresentado no trecho.
Answer:
Since Native Americans did not claim their civil rights over the land they inhabit, what counts is the natural right that God gave to all men, so it is justifiable for Christians to own the land together with the natives.
Explanation:
The text shown in the question above was written by John Winthrop, who was part of the English team to be the first settlers of North America and later became governor of the Massachusetts Bay Colony. In this text, Winthrop takes a position on the colonists' dictate to live in America, even though it is a land that already had inhabitants and "owners.
In that text, Winthrop claims that God gave men the natural direction over the land, where any land owned them all. Men, through their activities, assumed civil rights over pieces of land, where they became owners and could prevent anyone other than them from using it. However, Native Americans have never claimed civil rights to their land, which allows natural law to prevail and makes room for good Christians to own it.
B (2), I believe. It gave them power to choose communism or democracy, most would choose democracy.
Tell me if this is right or wrong. (: Apologies if it is wrong.
