During the great depression the prices of goods went DOWN, and that made consumers hoard hard cash because they felt the longer they waited the more prices would FALL and this restriction of supply was paradoxically making it more attractive to hoard cash, king of like a monopoly on the supply of money.
On the other hand speculators went bankrupt as deflation made the price of the lender's assets LESS than the value of their loan, which decreased their equity, which meant even if they sold all of their assets they could not pay off their loan, which made the BANKS lose a part of their money, and as the demand for hard cash rose that led more banks to go bankrupt, which in turn led more savers to get their assets in hard cash, paradoxically increasing the rate of bank failure.
My theory is that to stop this paradox from continuing is to cause inflation by literally "making" money, adding it to the Government balance, and that this should have been done immediately. Normal Governments do this all the time during recession, usually in the form of monetary policy by lowering rates and taxes to increase the supply of money in the economy (during boom years they increase taxes and interest rates to restrict the supply of cash and limit inflation). But during the great depression doing this was not enough, lowering rates and taxes was not enough, so in my opinion they should have literally printed off more money, which could then be used for infrastructure programs, which increases supply of money so it was not attractive to hoard money and thus increase supply more, while also increasing the value of properties and so increasing equity and stopping bankruptcies, and in the end this might lead to short term inflation, this could be stopped by higher taxes and rates, and then the Government can permanently remove the money from circulation. The only downside of this system is that it won’t punish the financially “special” people as to dissuade them from being so irresponsible, so the Government may have to adopt an asset tax(?) or something like that so the Government can reimburse, if only a little, the sensible people, as well as implement policy to stop banks from funding such speculation And Please don't be childish and report me I hope this helps
It was the tittle of the movies
Answer:
What is the questionФω∫
Explanation:
What is the question exactly?
Answer:
Language is like a way of communication. If you do not have the right word at the right time you cannot express your feelings and your say. In English there are exact words for exact things but in Hindi we repeat same words for many things this is the contraction between two languages for me if I have to say English is a very compact and brief language where you can easily learn new words and some amazing sentences and in English there are some sentences which you can only understand by the logical meaning not by the meaning that is written literally you have to use your own mind your own logic to know the exact meaning. If I write down some sentences
This sentence means that now it is time that we have to or we need to take the decision you can translate it into Hindi and make some nonsense meaning of it .
So language has its own importance logically practically and literally.
The answer is that this is not plagiarism.
Explanation:
The learner has created and elaborated the content of the writing by giving to the text her or his own words. Even though what is in the content is very similar to the first version, there is no any kind of plagiarism because the student is paraphrasing the text.
