<u>Major efforts to reform America during the progressive era
:</u>
The Progressive Era was a time of boundless social activism and political change over the United States that spread over the 1890s to the 1920s. Numerous activists joined endeavors to change neighborhood government, state funded instruction, prescription, account, protection, industry, railways, temples, and numerous different regions. Progressives changed, professionalized and made "logical" the sociologies, particularly history, financial aspects, and political theory. The four significant objectives of the dynamic development are:
- Protecting social welfare.
- Economic Reform.
- Economic efficiency.
- Promoting Moral Improvement.
Two of the most significant results of the Progressive Era were the Eighteenth and Nineteenth Amendments, the first banned the assembling, deal, or transport of liquor, and the second emancipated ladies with the privilege to cast a ballot.
Answer:
The New Deal was a series of programs and projects instituted during the Great Depression by President Franklin D. Roosevelt that aimed to restore prosperity to Americans. When Roosevelt took office in 1933, he acted swiftly to stabilize the economy and provide jobs and relief to those who were suffering. Over the next eight years, the government instituted a series of experimental New Deal projects and programs, such as the CCC, the WPA, the TVA, the SEC, and others. Roosevelt’s New Deal fundamentally and permanently changed the U.S. federal government by expanding its size and scope—especially its role in the economy.
Explanation:
hope this helps :)
Because most countries involved in the war had alliances with others. And when one was attacked the ally came to protect the other. Therefore countries became more and more involved in the war
Abstract: Although there are many scholarly treatments of the Founders’ understanding of property and economics, few of them present an overview of the complete package of the principles and policies upon which they agreed. Even the fact that there was a consensus among the Founders is often denied. Government today has strayed far from the Founders’ approach to economics, but the older policies have not been altogether replaced. Some of the Founders’ complex set of policies to protect property rights are still in force. America has abandoned the Founders’ views on the gold and silver standard, the prohibition of monopolies, the presumption of freedom to use property as one likes, freedom of contract, and restricting regulation to the protection of health, safety, and morals. But in other respects, America continues to offer a surprising degree of protection to property rights in the Founders’ sense of that term.
In light of the stark differences between the economies of the present day and the late 18th century in which the Founders lived, can we learn anything about economics by studying the principles and approach of our Founders? Perhaps surprisingly, the answer is “yes.” If we look to the actions they took and the rationale they offered for their actions, we will see that the Founders’ approach still offers us a guide to pressing economic questions of our day.
Although there are many scholarly treatments of the Founders’ understanding of property and economics, few of them present an overview of the complete package of the principles and policies upon which they agreed. Even the fact that there was a consensus among the Founders is often denied. Scholars who study this topic often focus on their differences rather than their agreements.
It is true that there were bitter disputes over particular policies during the Founding era, such as the paying of the national debt, the existence of a national bank, and whether to subsidize domestic manufactures, and these differences seemed tremendously important in the 1790s. But in spite of these quarrels, there was a background consensus on both principles and the main lines of economic policy that government should follow. John Nelson’s verdict on the 1790s is sound: “[W]hen the causes of the slow dissolution of consensus among America’s ruling elites after ratification of the Constitution are detailed, the evidence points to specific disagreements over programmatic issues and not fundamental schisms over the essential role of government.”[1]
The danger is that by concentrating on these and other Founding-era contests, we will fail to see (as the Founders themselves often failed to see) their agreement on the three main policies that, taken together, provide the necessary protection of property rights: the legal right to own and use property in land and other goods; the right to sell or give property to others on terms of one’s own choosing (market freedom); and government support of sound money. Their battles were fought over the best means to those ends and over such subordinate questions as whether and how large-scale manufacturing should be encouraged.
The Founders’ approach to economics, when it is discussed by public figures and intellectuals, has been much criticized. One reason many on the Left reject the Founders’ economic theory is that they think it encourages selfishness and leads to an unjust distribution of wealth. The prominent liberal thinker Richard Rorty believed that the “moral and social order” bequeathed to Americans by the Founders eventually became “an economic system which starves and mutilates the great majority of the population.” Such is the “selfishness” of an “unreformed capitalist economy.” For this reason, there is “a constant need for new laws and new bureaucratic initiatives which would redistribute the wealth produced by the capitalist system.”[2]
Answer:
It is likely that Elijah's servant was feeling cheated at first and was annoyed by Elias' insistence, but after the rain came down, his feelings changed and he began to see Elias as a great leader and a man of God.
Explanation:
This question refers to the biblical reading present in 1 Kings 18: 42-45, where Elijah had prophesied that it would rain in the region that had not rained for a long time. However, Elijah had spoken to God and had faith that the rain would come.
For this reason, he caused his servant to go up a hill, look towards the sea and see if there were any clouds as a sign of Rain. In doing so the servant reports that the sky is clear and that there is no sign that it will rain.
Then Elijah orders him to go up seven more times, which may have upset the servant and may have stimulated thoughts that he was being deceived by Elijah. However, after climbing seven times, the servant claims that the sky has a small cloud, the size of a man's hand. So Elijah says that this is the sign that it is going to rain.
The servant must have thought that Elijah was crazy, but after a few minutes it started raining with vigorous worms, which must have changed the servant's feelings towards Elijah, who was now seen as a man of God, prophet and leader.
