All of these are defensible. Of course debt rises in war, and decreasing taxes will benefit an economy where taxes are no longer needed (post-scarcity.) Political and geographical boundaries are outmoded and a world without them is not only possible but existed for much of early human civilization. As for the government, a government would run more efficiently when everyone is in basic agreement with what to do and how.
I would question your teacher on this. Anyone can defend these perspectives...
Explanation:
No, he wasn't. Louis had a lot of power but he never used it for any good. He wanted to become a good leader and king, however, he was more devoted to his carpentry. Louis spent a lot of money on his wife and his own pleasures when there was absolutley no need. While the third estate was begging for more money, fewer taxes, and a good life, he was half ignoring them and tending to his own needs instead, when he could have been helping and taking care of his citizens as a good king should.
The question which both John Maynard Keynes and Karl Marx would agree most about would be D. Do free-market economies create problems for workers?
<h3>What is a Free Market?</h3>
This refers to the economic system where there is limited government interference and price is determined by private businesses.
Hence, we can see that based on the economic views of both Keyes and Marx, they both questioned capitalist production and they would likely ask the question in option D because it would show how efficient it is for workers.
Read more about Karl Marx here:
brainly.com/question/17266755
#SPJ1
Answer:
Thymus, Bone marrow, Spleen, Lymphoid tissue “clumps”, Lymph vessels, Lymph nodes, Tonsils, Mucous membranes,
Explanation:
