<span>There's not really any pros for propaganda because essentially what you are doing is lying to get someone to believe something. I guess you could say a pro is that gullible people will believe you, but that's an unethical pro. The cons are that it usually causes much controversy in a society where there's not supposed to be a bias in the government. Propaganda in its true form is never a good thing. It is unethical in the sense that it takes advantage of people who are too lazy to do research and quick to believe what someone tells them. One example I like to use is many of these independent "news" websites. On both ends of the political spectrum, left and right, you find websites that have articles so heavily weighed down with that wings propaganda that true news becomes less and less visible. Occupy Democrats is one textbook example of that. Their articles are so left leaning that you read an article and are immediately left with a left leaning impression. Same goes for a lot of right wing websites. I'm not going to say "always" but propaganda 99.9 percent of the time is not good. Instead of people doing their own research to decide their view on something, propaganda </span>tells<span> people what they should think versus the </span><span>asking </span><span>people what they think</span>
Answer:
Streets and roads
Explanation:
The USA economy is a mixed market economy. It blends elements from the market economy with elements from planned economies.
Private ownership is prioritized ( free market economy) but the government has control over some public services such as healthcare (to an extend), physical infrastructure (the road system), education, national defense, the postal system, and some public lands.
The idea behind public ownership of these services is that they are better performed by the public than private enterprise.
The roads in the USA and their infrastructure are funded by taxes (especially the gas one), tolls, and user fees.
Try the 3rd one Mikhail Gorbachev
There are several ways in which we could justify this statement, but also many ways in which we would be able to challenge it.
In terms of support, we can argue that this was the case because the cultures of America did not have any significant contact with the cultures of Africa or Oceania until the arrival of the Europeans. We can also support this by the fact that the Andean cultures and the Mesoamerican cultures had no contact with each other.
However, there are several factors that show that this was not the case, or that the claim might be exaggerated. For example, we know that many groups in Africa had extensive interactions with each other. For example, the expansion of the Bantu that took place over large regions in Africa. Another challenge could be the extensive contact that many Mesoamerican groups had with each other.
