There are many theories to power, be they liberal, socialist or otherwise. Many have been developed over centuries of thought, which pick apart the very nature of our society and world order. But of all the theories that I’ve come across, one sticks out more than any other, and it is the reason I hold such strong free-market/anti-state views. It’s called Public Choice theory, but don’t ask me why, because it seems to explain why any one but ’the public’ makes choices today.
Public Choice theory is modern, having only really taken off during the 1960’s, but I believe it grants a very realistic and worrying view of Britain’s power structure, and exposes many very deep scars which socialism and Keynesianism unintentionally inflicted on our country. It was heavily developed by the US economist James Buchanan, who won the 1986 Nobel Memorial Prize for his work, and who advised Margaret Thatcher through the Institute for Economic Affairs during the late 1970′s.
Just like capitalism, Public Choice theory is based on two simple assumptions about human nature. Firstly, that humans are principally self-interested. That’s not to say we’re selfish, which is somewhat more immoral, but rather that we will always aim to fulfil our wants and desires, economic or otherwise. Secondly, that humans are rational; when presented with a series of options, we will select whichever makes us the most happy for the least cost. Rational Choice theory, as it is called, has come under substantial intellectual attack in the past, and I don’t personally believe that all humans act completely rationally all the time, but as a model for human behaviour, I’d say it provides a pretty good analysis.
That it was too large for the Union to conquer.
Because when the natural rubber supply from Southeast Asia was cut off at the beginning of World War II, the United States and its allies faced the loss of a strategic material. <span> So the companies, in collaboration with a network of researchers in government, academic, and industrial laboratories, developed and manufactured in record time enough synthetic rubber to meet the needs of the U.S. and its allies during World War II.</span>
President Franklin Roosevelt executed his "Good Neighbor" policy towards Latin American Countries in 1933.
Regarding the policy, The United States stated that it would not interfere in any of the Latin American countries domestic affairs. This position of the US government also promoted the development of bilateral relations between countries that could later evolve into commercial agreements. This would eventually happen during the last decade of the 20th century and the start of the 21st century.
<u>Which method was more effective in containment? Why?</u>
The Marshall Plan was an example of using financial resources to stop the spread of communism.
Approved by Henry Truman in 1943, the Marshall Plan was a far more effective method in containment because of the following reasons:
- Firstly, it was a subtle method to contain the spread of communism through the USSR disguised as a "plan" to help Western Europe and its decreased economy through loans.
- Secondly, it was a peaceful method that didn't result in devastation as the Korean War.
- Thirdly, it was perceived as a "miracle" and the US gained recognition for their efforts, as well as increasing their own economy.
- Furthermore, through the US' humanitarian efforts it tried to implicitly change the beliefs of the Western European people towards a non-communist political system, for which the Marshall Plan succeeded in the subsequent years.
