<span>The gold standard is a monetary system where a country's currency or paper money has a value directly linked to gold.</span><span><span>The
farmers opposed the gold standard because in order to live on their
farms, they needed to take out a mortgage on them because they couldn't
pay the entire fee by themselves. Thus, farmers were in debt, and a gold
AND silver standard would help them by increasing the amount of
currency in circulation. Inflation would help debtors because more
currency would be produced, therefore the value of each currency would
decrease and the value of their debts would similarly decrease, making
it easier to pay off. The amount of debt would stay the same, but they
would be getting higher wages because of inflation. The wealthy and
eastern industrial workers supported a gold standard because inflation
would not help them. The wealthy had savings accounts and such, and
inflation would lessen the value of their savings. Similarly, the
industrial workers might also have a small savings account, but would
not have a mortgage on a farm like the westerners (they would live in
tenement buildings), so inflation would not have a positive effect on
them either. </span> </span>
Answer:
I mean debate can encourage new laws but if you have one side wishing for laws and the other against it. It will usually slow legislation which is entirely the purpose. But it depends on what view are you taking it from because th end result can be no legislation at all or even a relaxation of legislation in fact that's happened in some states. So it depends on the view and narrative you wish to push. because it can be a semblance of all but B. If you're a centrist you'd probably say this debate will encourage new laws but the whole point of not wishing for infringements upon one's rights means no new laws. If you wanted new laws then this debate is a waste of time but you're angering a large portion of the population because you seek not to listen to the statistics and thereby information one may have that may dissuade from the legislation. And if you look at D it can be so. If 2 cannot agree then rights will not be infringed upon. Unless the side with more representatives that disagrees with the right then such laws will be enacted. Yes, they can place new restrictions and there you can make the case it's unconstitutional and etc because well there is ground and a foundation laid upon there. But as far as an actual thing it'd be A I suppose. But I'd question the teacher because it depends on how one views a division. It can be either cooperative relationships that can be mended or an all or nothing if it's not my way then we will have conflict and it shall erupt. It all depends.
Explanation:
Answer:
"That the 1912 election registered, and inspired, fundamental changes in American politics suggests the historical significance of the Progressive Party. Not only was it the driving force of this election, but it remains the most important third party to appear on the American political landscape in the 20th century."
Explanation:
Answer:
I think they should not trade
Explanation:
