He had goals for his country and wanted to be able to keep his rights as well as everyone else’s rights and therefore devoted time to his country to enable the future in which we live in today
In politics, the patronage system which was based around the spoils of war mentality caused problems of having unqualified and corrupt officials in government positions because they would get there only because they were close to the ruling party or the ruler. This was common before the merit system.
Well, Jefferson and his allies thought the bank was unconstitutional since the Constitution did not specifically give the government power to charter banks. The Democrats even said that Hamilton's bank would have too much power. Whereas, Hamilton knew The Bank Of England wanted the U.S. to start a bank and fundings were whack. Hamilton even said "The power of creating new funds upon new objects of taxation by its own authority would enable the national government to borrow, as far as its necessities might require"
1. New producers entering the market. (More businesses producing a product or service will mean a greater supply of that product or service.)
2. Government taxes and subsidies. (High taxes on a product may discourage suppliers, whereas government subsidies will encourage more of the product to be supplied. A recent example was government subsidy for the production of ethanol, which caused a strong increase in ethanol production and supplies.)
4. Cost of the product or services. (High input costs to provide the product or service will tend to decrease supply, as profit margins for producers are affected.)
5. Future expectation of prices. This one is tricky to call a "non-price determinant," but it's not a current, actual price. It's the anticipation that prices and sales will be strong at some future point. So, for instance, if there is an expectation that flying cars (or personal helicopters) will someday be a high-demand item that will sell for high prices, that will spur development and supply of such an item.
<em>The only one I left out was #3, effect of mass media advertising -- because that is something that is a determinant of demand rather than supply.</em>
Both presidentialism and parliamentarism are unequivocally democratic, but each of these regimes leads to different political consequences.
The great difference is that in parliamentarism the executive branch is composed of a president or a monarch, head of state, with limited powers, and a government appointed by Parliament, which at any time can censor. In presidentialism, however, the head of state and government coincide in the same person, are not subject to parliamentary censure and the Legislative Branch is limited to the area of law making.
Therefore, in presidentialism, voters elect the head of government (who in turn is head of state); instead, in parliamentarism, the head of government is appointed by the head of state, who is voted by the people.
