John locke thought that people were neither good nor bad innately. how did hobbes’s views differ from those of locke’s?
hobbes thought people were innately violent.
hobbes thought people were innately benevolent.
hobbes thought people were innately peaceful.
hobbes thought people were innately evil.

 Hobbes thought  people were naturally violent.

Further explanation:

Both English philosophers believed there is a "social contract" -- that governments are formed by the will of the people.  But their theories on why people want to live under governments were very different.

Thomas Hobbes published his political theory in Leviathan in 1651, following the chaos and destruction of the English Civil War.  He saw human beings as naturally suspicious of one another, in competition with each other, and violent toward one another as a result.  Forming a government meant giving up personal liberty, but gaining security against what would otherwise be a situation of every person at war with every other person.

John Locke published his Two Treatises on Civil Government in 1690, following the mostly peaceful transition of government power that was the Glorious Revolution in England.  Locke believed people are born as blank slates--with no preexisting knowledge or moral leanings.  Experience then guides them to the knowledge and the best form of life, and they choose to form governments to make life and society better.

In teaching the difference between Hobbes and Locke, I've often put it this way.  If society were playground basketball, Hobbes believed you must have a referee who sets and enforces rules, or else the players will eventually get into heated arguments and bloody fights with one another, because people get nasty in competition that way.   Locke believed you could have an enjoyable game of playground basketball without a referee, but a referee makes the game better because then any disputes that come up between players have a fair way of being resolved.    Of course, Hobbes and Locke never actually wrote about basketball -- a game not invented until 1891 in America by James Naismith.  But it's just an illustration I've used to try to show the difference of ideas between Hobbes and Locke.   :-)

the economy of japan in 1945 was completely destroyed. it is a lie that the americans bombed something in japan. they bombed everything and residential areas and factories. the entire industry of japan was eliminated.

during the us government in japan, there was no real development of the industry. japan grew rice, made sake and sold it on the world market, so much that there was a famine in japan.

however, in 1948, the development of some keiretsu began. it began to give growth but not systemic. where the money came from - the united states did not give anything to the keiretsu, not a cent but dzaybattsu in 1943, realizing that the defeat inevitably part of their money through latin america brought to the us by investing in the us economy. for example in the production of aircraft, cars, construction of houses. in 1948 they began to gradually return the money.

in 1950, the korean war began. ships were repaired in japan, japan transported cargoes for this war and people, and provided logistic support. and this earned some money.

in 1952, japan gained independence and the keiretsu began to return money from the united states to japan.

in 1954, the economy began to grow 5% per year. in 1962, due to the actions of the government and the preparation for the olympics, it accelerated to 9%. in 1966 it fell to 6%.

japan reached its prewar level in 1964 at the same time as the olympics.

and then 1968-1989 rapid growth but this is a separate topic.

factors

1. properly allocated resources

2. korean war

3. transistors

4. system change of product structure

but this is interesting

the answer is the letter b governor of new mexico territory