In trying to make sense of FDR's domestic policies, historians and political scientists have referred to a "First New Deal," which lasted from 1933 to 1935, and a "Second New Deal," which stretched from 1935 to 1938. (Some scholars believe that a "Third New Deal" began in 1937 but never took root; the descriptor, likewise, has never gained significant currency.) These terms, it should be remembered, are the creations of scholars trying to impose order and organization on the Roosevelt administration's often chaotic, confusing, and contradictory attempts to combat the depression; Roosevelt himself never used them. The idea of a "first "and "second" New Deal is useful insofar as it reflects important shifts in the Roosevelt administration's approach to the nation's economic and social woes. But the boundaries between the first and second New Deals should be viewed as porous rather than concrete. In other words, significant continuities existed between the first and second New Deals that should not be overlooked.
Answer:
The benefits of trade agreements are not felt evenly by all industries in an economy. In fact, even member nations gain varying advantages by entering into trade agreements. However, despite these drawbacks, the United States continues to act on its commitment to free trade. In 2005, the United States signed a fair trade agreement (FTA) with Australia, and in 2012, it signed a trade protection agreement (TPA) with Colombia. Both agreements have been in force for a while. Now the question is, Have these agreements benefited the US economy? Let’s examine the impact of the bilateral agreements with Colombia and Australia on the US economy.
According to the USTR, the International Trade Commission (ITC) predicted that the United States–Colombia TPA would increase national GDP by $2.5 billion (Office of the US Trade Representative). Under the TPA, US exports to Colombia increased from $12.0 billion in 2010 to $18.3 billion in 2013 (US Department of State). The TPA seems to have delivered on its promise, because according to the USTR, US exports to Colombia increased by 30% in 2013 (Office of the US Trade Representative). So financially, Colombia is a lucrative market for the United States. However, the main opposition to the TPA stemmed from concerns about the terrible labor conditions in Colombia and the violent threats to those seeking to improve labor conditions in a country rife with crime. Although violence is a major concern, the FTA will eventually help both nations by bringing about social and labor reforms through economic activity. By helping Colombia become a peaceful country, the United States can pave the way for increased trade with Colombia in the future.
The United States–Australia FTA received considered opposition in both countries. US dairy farmers, ranchers, and small farmers were anxious about job losses resulting from the free entry of Australian products into the US market. However, if we judge by the boost in exports, the FTA has contributed to overall US economic growth. According to the USTR, in the first five years of the FTA, US exports to Australia increased by 33% (Office of the US Trade Representative). The FTA removed all tariffs on American imports into Australia, giving US exporters barrier-free entry into Australian markets.
The export industry plays a key role in driving economic growth and generating jobs in the United States. Colombia and Australia are two large and important markets for US exporters. The United States faces competition from other nations for access to these markets. By signing trade agreements, American goods can compete effectively in these markets. Although the agreements with Colombia and Australia are opposed for valid reasons, the agreements will benefit the US economy over time
Explanation:
<span> He wanted to
create a 'League of Nations' which would be a coalition of many nations
(Germany was banned from being a part of it since they were blamed for
causing WW1) that would help to prevent any future wars. This was
Wilson's main goal. However, since there was a lot of partisan feeling,
and being involved in the League would take away the power that Congress
had to declare war, Congress ended up voting against joining the
League. </span>
Slavery was implicitly recognised in the original Constitution in provisions such as Article I, Section 2, Clause 3, commonly known as the Three-Fifths Compromise, which provided that three-fifths of each state's enslaved population (“other persons”) was to be added to its free population for the purposes of apportioning seats in the United States House of Representatives and direct taxes among the states.
