1answer.
Ask question
Login Signup
Ask question
All categories
  • English
  • Mathematics
  • Social Studies
  • Business
  • History
  • Health
  • Geography
  • Biology
  • Physics
  • Chemistry
  • Computers and Technology
  • Arts
  • World Languages
  • Spanish
  • French
  • German
  • Advanced Placement (AP)
  • SAT
  • Medicine
  • Law
  • Engineering
pav-90 [236]
3 years ago
14

Many Americans pay for haircuts, trips to the dentist, or transportation on the metro and bus systems. These actions support the

notion of capitalism, an example of _________.Select one:
a. Non-material culture
b. Material culture
c. A cultural universal
d. The counterculture
Social Studies
1 answer:
notka56 [123]3 years ago
5 0

Answer:

a. Non-material culture

Explanation:

Non - material culture -

It refers to the non material things or ideas which the people have with respect to the organisation , nation , norms , language , values and belief , is referred to as non - material culture .  

Non - material culture is like, the faith in god , religion and ethics.

Hence , from the given scenario of the question,

The correct term option is a. Non-material culture .

You might be interested in
The Governor of Georgia is elected by
SIZIF [17.4K]
The governor of Georgia is elected by the electoral college
3 0
2 years ago
Read 2 more answers
What country stands out as being a developed country where private individuals are required to pay the majority of health care?
Ymorist [56]
<span>The correct answer is the United States of America.

The United States are known for not having widespread and universal health care. Medical services are paid mostly through insurance or through direct payments for services. This stems from the individualistic and self-reliant philosophy of the United States where the citizens have the freedom to pay for what they want. Same goes for the health care system. </span>
7 0
3 years ago
Read 2 more answers
Compare and contrast the views of Hamilton as opposed to Jefferson and Madison. Discuss your own views of how the Constitution s
netineya [11]

I had intended to post Part II of the WWI question last night, but got caught up doing movie reviews on Life of Ando.  So to slake your ravenous historical thirst in the meantime, here is my assignment from my history class this past week.  If you’re really into American history and how the politics of the early Republic shook out, Jefferson vs. Hamilton is a great study.  It’s also a little, I guess comforting, to know that as bad as we think today’s politicians are,  politics was always a very dirty game.  Like Bismarck said, “Laws are like sausages.  Better to not see them being made.”  And as Ecclesiastes says, “There’s nothing new under the sun.”

1) How did the political philosophies of these men differ?

Most clear thinking Americans could probably tell you at least the rudimentary facts of who Thomas Jefferson was. Far fewer would likely have a definite idea of who Alexander Hamilton was and what his contributions as a Founding Father were. Yet his conception of an American government was just as important as that of Jefferson. Both founders foresaw the new nation as a great future power, and both had very different maps of how to get it there.

Jefferson believed the nation’s strength lay in its agricultural roots. He favored an agrarian nation with most powers reserved for the states. He was very opposed to a strong central authority and believed that the people were the final authority in government. Jefferson also encouraged active support for the French Revolution

Hamilton favored a strong central authority. He believed a strong government was necessary to provide order so that business and industry could grow. He envisioned America becoming an industrial power. To this end he sought to establish a national bank and fund the national debt in order to establish firm base for national credit. Hamilton believed that the government should be run by those who were educated and wealthy rather than by “the mob.” He opposed involvement in the French Revolution and worried Jeffersonians by appearing, and maybe even being, too cozy with Britain.

<span>2) How was the conflict between Jefferson and Hamilton a significant factor in the emergence of political parties?
</span>
The Jefferson/Hamilton conflict helped give rise to political parties by polarizing factions on opposite political sides. Those who backed Jefferson’s Democratic-Republicans supported states rights, a strict reading of the Constitution, and support for the French Revolution. Those who back Hamilton’s Federalists preferred a much stronger central government, an “elastic” reading of the Constitution, and a hands-off approach to the French Revolution.

3) Which view do you think was best for the US – Hamilton’s or Jefferson’s – and why? [This part should be several paragraphs long]

I don’t know if either view could be considered better or worse for America. Forced to choose, I would probably lean toward Hamiltonian ideas, but I believe both served a vital and necessary role in forming the government. Hamilton was a visionary and saw the potential of a great industrial power. His support of a strong central authority was a key reason the young nation was able to sustain itself in the early days, especially in such crises like Shayes Rebellion. One reason he may have felt as strongly as he did was his service in the Revolutionary War. Being one of Washington’s staff, he experienced first hand the difficulty the Continental army had with an ineffectual congress to keep it fed and supplied. The weak congress was not able to raise funds to pay for supplies because it had no real power.

For all his vision and innovation, Hamilton’s ambition may have carried him too far if left unchecked. The federal government may have become too powerful and curbed the rights of citizens, which in fact did happen to a degree during the Adams administration. Jefferson and his policies provided an important counter balance to Hamilton. Jefferson’s support of states’ rights and agriculture helped to offset the influence of the Hamilton-supporting merchants and manufacturers. However, without Hamilton’s counter-balance Jefferson’s policies may have left the government weak and ineffectual to deal with major crises both at home and abroad.

Each viewpoint needed the other to create a government that would be strong enough to protect itself and it’s people from internal and external strife, but not so strong that it would infringe on the rights of the people as enumerated in the Bill of Rights and in the Revolutionary spirit. These issues, of course, weren’t resolved or ceased to be relevant after Hamilton and Jefferson left the scene. These are still very much the issues we deal with even now, over 200 years later. As much as we might dislike, or even hate, the position of the “other” party, without some balance both sides would undoubtedly abuse their power…more than they already do.

5 0
3 years ago
Typically, party unity is greater in the senate than in the house of representatives.
Aloiza [94]
B. False, Use quizlet.com, they have all kinds of information like this.
5 0
3 years ago
bilang pagtugon sa sulat gumawa ng liham para sa iyong mga magulang o lolo,lola o malapit na kamag-anak na naglalahad ng iyong g
garri49 [273]

Answer:

what?

Explanation:

4 0
2 years ago
Other questions:
  • What's a country with three a's
    8·2 answers
  • The Puritans of 17 th century New England believed that_________. a. they could rely on the "sure and certain hope of resurrecti
    15·1 answer
  • Question text In the modern political system, Democrats and Republicans are referred to as being on which sides of the political
    13·2 answers
  • Hannah was awarded $5 million in damages in a malpractice case against Batlock, the lawyer. Batlock's attorney filed a motion fo
    8·1 answer
  • Which of these is an example of institutional racism?
    13·2 answers
  • (ill give brainliest if u help
    6·2 answers
  • As the protagonist in The Most Dangerous Game, Rainsford is consistently conflicted with external conflicts. Give two examples o
    15·1 answer
  • How can we use /apply in social work practice the two factor theory stanely schachtet??
    7·1 answer
  • 1. Jacob Riis and Upton Sinclair were both muckraking journalists. Why do you think so much muck existed in the tenements and in
    14·1 answer
  • according to the activation-synthesis hypothesis, it should be possible to predict (with better than chance accuracy) the conten
    13·1 answer
Add answer
Login
Not registered? Fast signup
Signup
Login Signup
Ask question!