1answer.
Ask question
Login Signup
Ask question
All categories
  • English
  • Mathematics
  • Social Studies
  • Business
  • History
  • Health
  • Geography
  • Biology
  • Physics
  • Chemistry
  • Computers and Technology
  • Arts
  • World Languages
  • Spanish
  • French
  • German
  • Advanced Placement (AP)
  • SAT
  • Medicine
  • Law
  • Engineering
Marina86 [1]
4 years ago
5

How does the government of a republic typically shape its economy?

History
2 answers:
Dmitriy789 [7]4 years ago
7 0
Abstract: Although there are many scholarly treatments of the Founders’ understanding of property and economics, few of them present an overview of the complete package of the principles and policies upon which they agreed. Even the fact that there was a consensus among the Founders is often denied. Government today has strayed far from the Founders’ approach to economics, but the older policies have not been altogether replaced. Some of the Founders’ complex set of policies to protect property rights are still in force. America has abandoned the Founders’ views on the gold and silver standard, the prohibition of monopolies, the presumption of freedom to use property as one likes, freedom of contract, and restricting regulation to the protection of health, safety, and morals. But in other respects, America continues to offer a surprising degree of protection to property rights in the Founders’ sense of that term. In light of the stark differences between the economies of the present day and the late 18th century in which the Founders lived, can we learn anything about economics by studying the principles and approach of our Founders? Perhaps surprisingly, the answer is “yes.” If we look to the actions they took and the rationale they offered for their actions, we will see that the Founders’ approach still offers us a guide to pressing economic questions of our day. Although there are many scholarly treatments of the Founders’ understanding of property and economics, few of them present an overview of the complete package of the principles and policies upon which they agreed. Even the fact that there was a consensus among the Founders is often denied. Scholars who study this topic often focus on their differences rather than their agreements. It is true that there were bitter disputes over particular policies during the Founding era, such as the paying of the national debt, the existence of a national bank, and whether to subsidize domestic manufactures, and these differences seemed tremendously important in the 1790s. But in spite of these quarrels, there was a background consensus on both principles and the main lines of economic policy that government should follow. John Nelson’s verdict on the 1790s is sound: “[W]hen the causes of the slow dissolution of consensus among America’s ruling elites after ratification of the Constitution are detailed, the evidence points to specific disagreements over programmatic issues and not fundamental schisms over the essential role of government.”[1] The danger is that by concentrating on these and other Founding-era contests, we will fail to see (as the Founders themselves often failed to see) their agreement on the three main policies that, taken together, provide the necessary protection of property rights: the legal right to own and use property in land and other goods; the right to sell or give property to others on terms of one’s own choosing (market freedom); and government support of sound money. Their battles were fought over the best means to those ends and over such subordinate questions as whether and how large-scale manufacturing should be encouraged. The Founders’ approach to economics, when it is discussed by public figures and intellectuals, has been much criticized. One reason many on the Left reject the Founders’ economic theory is that they think it encourages selfishness and leads to an unjust distribution of wealth. The prominent liberal thinker Richard Rorty believed that the “moral and social order” bequeathed to Americans by the Founders eventually became “an economic system which starves and mutilates the great majority of the population.” Such is the “selfishness” of an “unreformed capitalist economy.” For this reason, there is “a constant need for new laws and new bureaucratic initiatives which would redistribute the wealth produced by the capitalist system.”[2]
vazorg [7]4 years ago
6 0

Answer

The government allows citizens to own private businesses.

Explanation

A Republic for Of Government is system in which a state or a country is ruled by representatives of the citizen body. Thus citizens vote to elect politicians to represent their interests and form the government.  In most republics, the Head of State is called the president. In some countries, the president is elected and has a lot of political power. The  main purpose of government should be to protect the people's natural rights.In shaping the economy the republic government allows people or citizens to own private businesses and industries. Then the government takes charge of the sensitive sectors like finance and defense.

You might be interested in
Apakah kesan hari autism kepada diri,masyarakat dan negara.
Step2247 [10]
Apakah kh la te autism
5 0
4 years ago
An organ, in any multicellular organism, would BEST be described as
wolverine [178]

Answer:

the answer is D

Explanation:

6 0
3 years ago
Explain the strengths of the Articles of Confederation and how people reacted to this document.
dimulka [17.4K]

Answer: The strengths of the Articles of Confederation were:

The first constitution

Congress had the power to deal with foreign affairs, declare war, make peace and sign treaties.

It had the power to manage Native Indian affairs.

It could pass laws that could affect all the states.

Could coin money

It had passed the Northwest Ordinance of 1787; it formed new states that had a population of 60,000 or more

It had control of the Department of Postal Service

Explanation: However, as most of us should already know, the Articles of Confederation was revised later and then the U.S Constitution was  ratified.

8 0
3 years ago
Why is marginal change so Important in making economic decisions?
adelina 88 [10]

Answer:

Marginal costs and benefits are a vital part of economics because they help to provide the relevant measurement of costs and benefits at a certain level of production and consumption. If measured marginal costs and benefits are provided, it is much easier to calculate the ideal price and quantity.

5 0
3 years ago
This map shows four regions of Native American cultures that existed in what in now Texas prior to European colonization.
photoshop1234 [79]
The Buffalo picture represents number four on the map I’m pretty sure
4 0
3 years ago
Read 2 more answers
Other questions:
  • Which of these is an example of muckraking disguised as a work of fiction?
    10·1 answer
  • What did the president Kennedy’s domestic agenda primarily fight?
    7·1 answer
  • What are three ways that speaking the same language could unify people?
    10·1 answer
  • What event led to Theodore Roosevelt becoming President? A. Elections were rigged in several states. B. The election was tied an
    11·2 answers
  • Use the reading to create a claim that answers this question: How did conf licts within Washington's cabinet affect American pol
    13·1 answer
  • What was the Babylonian exile
    11·1 answer
  • The years after the fall of the Western Roman Empire are known as the Middle Ages. True or False this will help in so many ways
    13·1 answer
  • What were three political problems in The Civil War<br> Will give Brainliest and 100 Pts.
    13·2 answers
  • What argument might Britain have made for its many acts against American commerce on the seas?
    6·1 answer
  • What word is missing from the 35 word oath of office? "I do solemnly swear that I will execute the Office of President of the Un
    10·1 answer
Add answer
Login
Not registered? Fast signup
Signup
Login Signup
Ask question!