How would both Karl Marx and Adam Smith respond to Thomas Malthus's ideas regarding poverty? They would have agreed that poverty
was the result of a natural increase in population in relation to food supply. They would have disagreed on the idea that assisting the poor caused them long-term harm. They would have agreed that it was impossible to develop agriculture sufficient to feed any population. They would have disagreed on the idea that war, poverty, disease, and famine were natural checks to population growth.
They would have disagreed on the idea that war, poverty, disease, and famine were natural checks to population growth.
Explanation:
Malthus believed that the populace would dependably expand more quickly than sustenance supply, which implied that substantial quantities of individuals would dependably experience the ill effects of starvation and poverty. His calculations exhibited that while nourishment supply developed at a straight rate, populaces would in general develop at an exponential one.
Karl Marx felt that populace development would cause things like absence of resources. In the interim, Adam Smith wanted more individuals to be born.
I
think the answer to this question would be <u>“They would have disagreed on the
idea that war, poverty, disease, and famine were natural checks to population
growth.”
</u> <span>This based upon that Karl Marx thought that population growth
would cause things like lack of resources. Meanwhile, Adam smith wanted more
people to be born.</span>
An example of a challenge to political change would be special interest groups in Congress, while for economic change it would be tax codes, and for social changes it would be a lack of unity in protest.
Well from what iu know about him, he was most famous for painting things about the leaders of the american revolution. and from these choices, the only one that seems to work is C. hope my answer has helped you