According to Aristotle's three classifications of government, if the government is ruled by one sovereign it is called a Monarchy, if this is corrupted to the selfish needs and ends of that one, it is called a Tyranny. If it is ruled by a few in society, who are above others it is called an aristocracy, however, if this is corrupted it is known as an Oligarchy, where this small group only seek selfish ends. If it is ruled by many for the good of all it is known as a Polity, or if it is for the good of many it is known as a democracy.
Rule by one: it is Monarchy or Tyranny (If Corrupted).
Rule by Few: Aristocracy or Oligarchy (If corrupted)
Rule by Many: Polity (For good of all) or Democracy (For the Good of many)
Answer:s the United States enters the 21st century, it stands unchallenged as the world’s economic leader, a remarkable turnaround from the 1980s when many Americans had doubts about U.S. “competitiveness.” Productivity growth—the engine of improvement in average living standards—has rebounded from a 25-year slump of a little more than 1 percent a year to roughly 2.5 percent since 1995, a gain few had predicted.
Economic engagement with the rest of the world has played a key part in the U.S. economic revival. Our relatively open borders, which permit most foreign goods to come in with a zero or low tariff, have helped keep inflation in check, allowing the Federal Reserve to let the good times roll without hiking up interest rates as quickly as it might otherwise have done. Indeed, the influx of funds from abroad during the Asian financial crisis kept interest rates low and thereby encouraged a continued boom in investment and consumption, which more than offset any decline in American exports to Asia. Even so, during the 1990s, exports accounted for almost a quarter of the growth of output (though just 12 percent of U.S. gross domestic product at the end of the decade).
Yet as the new century dawns, America’s increasing economic interdependence with the rest of the world, known loosely as “globalization,” has come under attack. Much of the criticism is aimed at two international institutions that the United States helped create and lead: the International Monetary Fund, launched after World War II to provide emergency loans to countries with temporary balance-of-payments problems, and the World Trade Organization, created in 1995 during the last round of world trade negotiations, primarily to help settle trade disputes among countries.
The attacks on both institutions are varied and often inconsistent. But they clearly have taken their toll. For all practical purposes, the IMF is not likely to have its resources augmented any time soon by Congress (and thus by other national governments). Meanwhile, the failure of the WTO meetings in Seattle last December to produce even a roadmap for future trade negotiations—coupled with the protests that soiled the proceedings—has thrown a wrench into plans to reduce remaining barriers to world trade and investment.
For better or worse, it is now up to the United States, as it has been since World War II, to help shape the future of both organizations and arguably the course of the global economy. A broad consensus appears to exist here and elsewhere that governments should strive to improve the stability of the world economy and to advance living standards. But the consensus breaks down over how to do so. As the United States prepares to pick a new president and a new Congress, citizens and policymakers should be asking how best to promote stability and growth in the years ahead.
Unilateralism
Answer:
the chinooks role in different play
The fundamental driver of the two emergencies lies in activities of the central government. On account of the Great Depression in the wake of keeping loan costs falsely low in the 1920s, brought financing costs up in 1929 to end the subsequent blast. That helped interfere with speculation. Additionally, President Hoover marked into law the out of this world Smoot-Hawley Tariff, which smothered exchange and harmed American fares all through the 1930s. At last, the President marked a huge expense increment into law in 1932, which stopped business enterprise.
The seeds of the Great Recession were planted when the administration in the 1990s started pushing homeownership, notwithstanding for uncreditworthy individuals, with a retaliation. Home loan sponsored securities based on questionable home loan credits moved toward becoming "poisonous" when the lodging market took a downturn, and numerous American banks skirted on crumble. The administration's earnest wants to salvage different banks and organizations made vulnerability and unsteadiness, and this may have broadened the retreat.
Answer: Baffled can mean that the soilders were in shock over what they had seen.
Explanation:
