What language is this? I want to know haha
<span> do not know what you definition of "end of the century" is, here are the phases of development of the German economy since WW II: </span>
<span>after introduction of German Mark in 1948/1949 until 1973: "Economic Wonder", high growth rates, decreasing unemployment to the point where we hired foreign workers from Italy/Greece/Portugal/Spain, </span>
<span>1973: Oil shock and stagflation: growth rates reduced to 2 - 3 % average until 1990, high inflation which went down by the end of he period to 2 %, rising unemployment up to 8 % </span>
<span>1990: Re-Unification with Eastern Germany triggered a short term high growth rate, but also unemployment increased to nearly 10 % by end of century, economical growth GDP around 1 - 2 %, </span>
<span>significant increase in government debt and deficits as huge investment in East German infrastructure and retirement/health care/ unemployment system. By the end of the century Germany was considered "the sick man of Europe". </span>
<span>From 2002: "Agenda 2010" with major labor market reforms lead to higher employment (today around 6 %), and significant reduction in deficit: today just 8 bn $ and growth rats 2 - 3 % per year.</span>
It largely depends on what city state we are talking about. People at this time didn't identify as Greeks they were Thebans, Ionians, Athenians, Thracians and so on.
Syracuse and Corinth had well developed democratic systems and many of the other city states had democratic components. Even the militaristic duel monarchy of the Spartans had some democracy. The Spartan Ephors were elected and had enough power to exile kings if desired. Let's look at the most commonly cited city state though, Athens.
Athenians utilized a direct democracy compared to Roman republic and everything would be voted upon. Who would lead the armies, what kind of trade arrangements, who the diplomatic envoys would be; pretty much everything. Romans elected specific individuals to handle regional business like a representative of the people, the senators and provincial governors.
Athens was slightly more equal then the Roman system. Under the Athenian law all free citizens technically had equal rights in the government. In Rome the Patricians, Equestrians and Plebeians had strictly defined roles both legally and legislatively.
The reverse of the above point were the inclusiveness of the two systems. Athens had draconian regulations on who qualified as a free member of the city state. Rome comparatively welcomed a large swath of people and actively sought to latinize the frontiers.
Rome had two consistent political parties. Politics would be marked by conflict between the Conservatives and the Populares. Athens comparatively had many political blocks that were constantly evolving and changing beliefs.
The most distinct difference between the system is probably the adaptability of them though. The Roman system was extremely complex, but was constantly changing and adapting to meet the changing times. The Athenian system would become bogged down as time progressed and would essentially become little more then another oligarchy towards its end.
<span>Castro called Cuba a "colony of the United States" -- and made it clear he wanted to break with old ways. But over the past five decades, Cuba has exchanged a sugar quota and trade and investment dependence on the United States for massive handouts from the former Soviet Union and, now, for big subsidies from oil-rich Venezuela. so the answer is YES. they still rely on trading.</span>
Try watching the ClassConnect Recording. We went over the assignment in class.
