Answer:
Elderly people have become a political force and a topic of debate, bringing greater attention to issues such as Social Security and Medicare
Many countries around the world took different decisions during wartime. Some have been more brutal and difficult than we could have imagined. But in this situation that the Armenians faced, political events also had an effect. If you really want to get the right answer, you have to turn your perspective to both sides. Because both sides see themselves as justified in this event in history. And indeed, both sides have their faults and their justifications. In 1919, two American diplomats who wanted to investigate the event impartially visited the region. Their names were Emory Niles and Arthur Sutherland, and their view of the region was that both sides were right. Among the statements they wrote, it was written that the Armenians formed gangs against the Turks and plundered the Turkish villages in the region. But they also wrote that "Turkish soldiers were displaying a bad attitude towards Armenian civilians. According to the Turks, the reason for this was that the Armenians caused unrest in the region and took part in gang actions against the Turks. So the soldiers had to take control of the area. But when we look further into the past, we see that Armenians and Turks lived in peace in the empire. Even Armenian representatives took part in the Ottoman parliament in the 19th century. The reason why 2 communities that lived in harmony are so angry with each other is that foreign countries provoke the region to annex the region. We know that in the first world war, Russia wanted to invade the region. We also know that the Russians want to include the Orthodox Armenians in the region among themselves. It would not be difficult to conclude that the Russians formed gangs from the Armenians in the region and provoked them against the Kurdish and Turkish villages in the region. If this is indeed true, we would conclude that both parties are right in their own way.
Scarcity is the fundamental challenge that all individuals and nations must confront. Everyone faces some limitations, so we all have to make choices where we limit or allow ourselves to something.
Economists generally recognize four types of economic systems traditional, traditional, command, market and mixed.
A traditional economic system is shaped by tradition. The work that people do, the goods and services they provide, how they exchange resources… all tend to follow a pattern. The traditional system is bad at addressing scarcity because scarcity is formed off of new requirements people have through the ages and a traditional system would not evolve just as our requirements would.
In a planned economy, the government controls the economy. The state decides how to use and distribute resources. The government regulates prices and wages; it may even determine what sorts of work individuals do.
Socialism is a prime example of a planned economy. Socialism does not work because it is not consistent with the fundamental principles of human behavior. The failure of socialism in countries around the world can be traced to one critical defect: it is a system that ignores incentives.
Market economies allow all economic decisions to be made by individuals. The unrestrained interactions between individuals and companies in the marketplace determine what happens to all the good and resources.Individuals choose how to invest their personal resources and individuals decide what to consume. Within a pure market economy, the government is entirely absent from economic affairs.
A mixed economic system combines elements of the market and command economy. Many economic decisions are made in the market by individuals. But the government also plays a role in the allocation and distribution of resources.
If scarcity is looked at on a macro level, the best economic system is mixed because it allows the government to also plays a role in the allocation and distribution of resources, while the individuals still stay happy because they have some control. The only problem is the eternal question of what the right mix between the public and private sectors of the economy should be.
There is no point to look at it on a micro level because almost no country is small enough to be considered on that level.
I believe only the last is correct, the reasoning being as follows: Option 1 should have switched consequences, Option 2, The American Revolution began in 1763, and Option 3, quite obvious.
Answer:
Globalization is associated with rapid and significant human changes. The movements of people from rural to urban areas have accelerated, and the growth of cities in the developing world especially is linked to substandard living for many. Family disruption and social and domestic violence are increasing.
