I believe both theories can be used to the well-being of a nation and per scripture. To ignore the human suffering that was experienced during the depression would have been inhumane. The New Deal used debt to create lasting infrastructure and create segments of the industry that we still have today. When the economy is back on track and unemployment is at acceptable levels, the government needs to then turn its attention to using increased tax revenue to pay down debt rather than creating additional social programs that continue to grow government
A government monopoly on production is a good stepping stone. It wouldn’t be hard to make the switch model from a government monopoly. But doing the reverse switching from a commercial system to government-run sales would be much harder, as businesses would lobby against any such
Economic nationalists regard trade protection as a tool of state creation and statecraft. Many representatives of less developed countries believe that trade with industrialized countries is a form of imperialism; they fear that free trade benefits only the developed economy and leads to dependence of the less developed countries on the developed ones. Protectionism refers to government actions and policies that restrict or restrain international trade, often done with the intent of protecting local businesses and jobs from foreign competition. Typical methods of protectionism are import tariffs, quotas, subsidies or tax cuts to local businesses and direct state intervention. Friedrich List (1841) argued that every industrial nation
This way, the society is better off and this concept is now a well-known concept accepted by Economists. This theory transit from personal knowledge to share knowledge, which verify that personal knowledge have the ability to shape shared knowledge. Before Adam Smith’s theory of invisible hand, the discipline of economics didn’t even exist. Thus without his personal knowledge, I will not be able to learn about the theory of invisible hand in Economics lessons. Based on Adam Smith’s theory and the example about conformity, it highlights that shared knowledge and personal knowledge to a certain extent is
Arendt argues that there is no place for poverty in politics but Marx makes the point that poverty must be eliminated first so that politics can flourish. The only way to eliminate poverty is through the political system and the overthrow of the elite. As long as there is economic oppression, freedom is not attainable for every citizen. The separation of economics and freedom is unrealistic because money controls the actions of the people. The poor cannot be free to self-actualize while they are still subject to the bourgeoisie.
This leads the concepts of power to shift away from theories that associate power with just the economy and the state. It thus moves towards an ideal beneath which power functions at the most micro level of social relations (Gaventa, 2003). This is a pro because instead of ignoring the power hierarchies between individuals and the various power dynamics within society, Foucault essentially focuses on them. Other critiques have failed to mention historical contextualisation and have been inclined to occur in isolation from questions that regard the broader production of knowledge (Hook, 2004). This helps us to understand power relations and hierarchies better within society.
In order that the developing countries were gaining progressively influence while the developed countries were losing their power. Another issue was that the emerging economies would benefit generously from the open world markets although they are unwilling to open their own markets and to contribute new liberalization in manufactures and
When problems develop, people will try to solve them according to their own interests, so there will be the necessity of a supranational authority which creates new laws and then executes them. Without such authority, the community would not be able to come to an agreement and especially they would not be able to enforce the laws. Marx’s communism does not take into account also immigration. In conclusion, communism as described by Marx would represent a perfect type of government, where the citizens have the power, and where everybody is equal. However, this does not represent the truth.
Power, however, is an in itself. Foucault’s writings demonstrate, there may be other concepts intrinsic to the nature of the concept of government, such as freedom. Marx writings illustrate that the emergence of power in the society is preceded but not caused by hostile outbreaks of violence. He does not support the mechanism of violence as a way to obtain power. In a combination of both writings, a standpoint can only be valid depending on the logic presented in both cases.
Nevertheless, Liberals believe in a moderate sum of taxation to fund social welfare programs which may limit the degree of market freedom. Liberals avoid the residual, voluntary, and family-dependent style of human services used chiefly by Conservatives to aid the ‘deserving poor’, instead relying heavily on the state to provide benefits for many; the ‘collective’ (Lightman, 2003). These
Limiting government also increases everyone 's freedom, but limiting the power of government also limits the ability to take action on its citizens. The government is too weak so there is a risk of citizens having their freedom violated.
Imperialism was all about power, because whether it was militarily or economically, the country taking over needed ascendancy to assert their influence and control onto another. It isn’t too hard for one to make the assumption that the small, underdeveloped countries are not going to be able to assert control, therefore, because the developing countries are not WEIRD, they will be the ones taken over. In addition to having their economy and government controlled for them, the long term imperialism drains their small scale industry and resources. Instead of being their own country, they are the epigone of another. So, imperialised countries had a pause button pressed on their political growth.
raises an important question of whether we should readdress what it means to be considered a developed nation. While economic growth has been the standard for many scholars measuring country’s development level, measuring the economic equality level will shed more light on what it truly means to be developed. Just because a nation has a large market does not mean that the citizens are enjoying the growth. There has to be a way to address issues on economic equality.
And in fact, the exclusionary practices that breed homogeneity in affluent areas also limit the range of social problems, thus depressing interest in politics (Oliver 95). Frederick Solt, an Assistant Professor of Political Science at the University of Iowa, reviews these perspectives and examines their validity through cross-national data from multiple advanced industrial democracies. His findings indicate that higher levels of income inequality powerfully depress political participation. Solt’s work substantiates the assertion that issues advocated by the poor are unlikely to be considered and thus debated in the political process. Therefore, revealing how economic inequality undermines political equality.