Answer:All individuals, whether rich or poor, are dissatisfied with their material well-being and would like more.
Explanation: People who face poverty and who have no proper shelter , food or even proper clothes to wear are always yearning for a life that is better than that which they are experiencing. Their wishes and desires always exceed the available resources so there is always scarcity in this case.
At the same time those who are wealthy also do not have all the resources that they all wish they could have , no matter how much money one possesses in those wealthy nations but it is never enough to fullfil all those things that each individual consider to be worthwhile.
Each individual person in whatever state of economy they find themselves in, there is never a point where all the resources seems to fulfill everyone's desires or wishes in that country or nation.
<h3>
♫ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ~Hello There!~ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ♫</h3>
➷ This is the 'evolutionary' perspective.
<h3><u>✽</u></h3>
➶ Hope This Helps You!
➶ Good Luck (:
➶ Have A Great Day ^-^
↬ ʜᴀɴɴᴀʜ ♡
Question:
Why do you think Lincoln didn't end slavery in the north?
Answer:
The proclamation didn't end slavery because it didn't affect the border slave states that weren't in rebellion, and it had no immediate effect in most of the deep South because, at least on the day it was issued, the slaves were in territory still controlled by the Confederacy.
Explanation:
Abraham Lincoln did believe that slavery was morally wrong, but there was one big problem: It was sanctioned by the highest law in the land, the Constitution. The nation’s founding fathers, who also struggled with how to address slavery, did not explicitly write the word “slavery” in the Constitution, but they did include key clauses protecting the institution, including a fugitive slave clause and the three-fifths clause, which allowed Southern states to count enslaved people for the purposes of representation in the federal government.
In a three-hour speech in Peoria, Illinois, in the fall of 1854, Lincoln presented more clearly than ever his moral, legal and economic opposition to slavery—and then admitted he didn’t know exactly what should be done about it within the current political system.
Abolitionists, by contrast, knew exactly what should be done about it: Slavery should be immediately abolished, and freed enslaved people should be incorporated as equal members of society. They didn’t care about working within the existing political system, or under the Constitution, which they saw as unjustly protecting slavery and enslavers. Leading abolitionist William Lloyd Garrison called the Constitution “a covenant with death and an agreement with Hell,” and went so far as to burn a copy at a Massachusetts rally in 1854.
-Alan Becker
