Idkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkk
Hamilton- desired a strong central government as they admired the English aristocracy and the English system of government
Jefferson- disfavored a strong central government
Hamilton- wanted to expand the economy and increase nation's wealth by power of government to promote business, manufacturing, and trade
Jefferson- Democratic-Republican party favored an economy based on agriculture
Hamilton- wealthy, upper class
Jefferson- less fortunate people
Hamilton: Hamilton believed that we should remain neutral to all foreign affairs.
Jefferson: Jefferson believed that France was better to have relations with than Britain.
Sorry if I made any mistakes, please correct me if I have. Hope this helped. :) (Disclaimer: I got these answers from different sources.)
The main law regulating child labor in the United States is the Fair Labor Standards Act. For non-agricultural jobs, children under 14 may not be employed, children between 14 and 16 may be employed in allowed occupations during limited hours, and children between 16 and 18 may be employed for unlimited hours in non-hazardous occupations.[1] A number of exceptions to these rules exist, such as for employment by parents, newspaper delivery, and child actors.[1] The regulations for agricultural employment are generally less strict.
The economics of child work involves supply and demand relationships on at least three levels: the supply and demand of labor on the national (and international) level; the supply and demand of labor at the level of the firm or enterprise; the supply and demand for labor (and other functions) in the family. But a complete picture of the economics of child labor cannot be limited to simply determining supply and demand functions, because the political economy of child labor varies significantly from what a simple formal model might predict. Suppose a country could effectively outlaw child labor. Three consequences would follow: (1) the families (and the economy) would lose the income generated by their children; (2) the supply of labor would fall, driving up wages for adult workers; and (3) the opportunity cost of a child’s working time would shrink, making staying in school (assuming schools were available) much more attractive. In principle, a virtuous circle would follow: with more schooling, the children would get more skills and become more productive adults, raising wages and family welfare.20 To the extent that the demand for labor is elastic, however, the increase in wages implies that the total number of jobs would fall.
The labor supply effects are the basic outline of the logic that underlies almost all nations’ laws against child labor, as well as the international minimum age standard set in ILO Convention 138 and much of the anti-child labor statements during the recent protests against the World Trade Organization, World Bank and International Monetary Fund. This model does describe in very simplified form the long-term history of child work in the economic development of developed economies. But in the short-term, the virtuous circle seldom occurs in real life as quickly as the simple, static model suggests. The reason for the model’s short-term failure is that child work results from a complex interweaving of need, tradition, culture, family dynamics and the availability of alternative activities for children.
History suggests that children tend to work less, and go to school more, as a result of several related economic and social trends. the political economy of a place plays at least as big a part as per capita income in determining the level of child labor there.
One negative about the slave trade was that it tended to increase the amount of war that occurred in West Africa. The reason for this is that European (and American) slave traders did not simply go out into the African countryside and kidnap their own slaves. Instead, they bought slaves from the coastal kingdoms. Those kingdoms generally got slaves to sell through war and through raids against inland tribes. Because the slave traders wanted more slaves, the coastal kingdoms were encouraged to wage more wars and conduct more raids against their neighbors. In addition, those kingdoms were provided with things like guns in exchange for slaves. This helped those kingdoms have a greater capacity for waging war.
This brings us to the one (short-term) benefit of the slave trade: it initially helped the coastal kingdoms. Those kingdoms became richer and more powerful because they were able to get guns, money, and other things in exchange for the slaves.
However, even these kingdoms were hurt in the long term. This is because the slave trade hurt all of West Africa. First, the slave trade took away millions of Africans (men more than women) in the prime of their lives. This badly disrupted both the cultures and the economies of the African nations. Because they were disrupted, they were less able to progress. The link below argues that the slave trade made it harder for Africa to enjoy an agrarian revolution and, in turn, an industrial revolution. This is because the men and women who could have helped make these revolutions were being taken into slavery. Because the African nations did not develop economically and because their societies were weakened, they were unable to effectively resist the Europeans when the Europeans started to colonize Africa.
Thus, we can say that Africa was badly harmed by the slave trade. The trade made war more common, harmed the economies and societies of the nations from which the slaves came, and eventually made it easier for Africa to be colonized by the Europeans.
C, because it shows you the Earths surface. hope this helps.
