Answer:
first as a mixture of indentured slavery, African chattel slavery, and native American slavery for economic gain in the Southern colonies.
Explanation:
The Southern colonies, including in the West Indies, had mainly focused on the production of cash crops and plantation agriculture. However, this took a lot of labor, including in dangerous working environments. Indentured servants, often times immigrants from Ireland, were a risky investment, and often died. New diseases from the old world killed off much of the native American population, not to mention they knew the land and had places to escape from slavery to. African chattel slavery had two main benefits: 1) they came from Africa in large quantities (with much immunity due to the longer history of European interaction) and typically had no where to go, making them available, and 2) their children were also born into slavery, meaning there were essentially, in the eyes of masters, and endless "supply" of slaves. Even after new slave importation from Africa was banned, the children of slaves remained and continued on. This economic benefit that slaves carried continued far after the American Revolution in the south, especially after the creation of the cotton gin during the market revolution, as well as western expansion, that made slavery even more practical than it had previously been.
The correct answer is Keynes.
Keynes supported free markets but as long as these were regulated by state intervention in order to soften the peaks and troughs in the business cycle. Therefore, in his opinion, the three economic questions (what to produce, how and for whom) should be answered by the economic agents in the markets, but always under the supervision of the state.
Smith was an advocate of free markets and of supressing state interventionism. On the other hand, Marx was in favour of massive intervention of the state because he considered markets to produce un unfair distribution of wealth in the states, where the richer ones exploited the poor.
<span>An effective bureaucracy demands reliability of response and strict devotion to regulations. Such devotion to the rules leads to their transformation into absolutes; they are no longer conceived as relative to a set of purposes. This interferes with ready adaptation under special conditions not clearly envisaged by those who drew up the general rules.</span>
