1. We can analyze the possible social benefits or consequences by creating a standard that deemed as 'desirable' social situation and measures the situation before and after the militarization.
If after the militarization our society got closer to the desirable outcome, we would say that the militarization produces a social benefit.
2. We could take a look at the example of American military occupation in Iraq.
Initially, we intended for the militarization to create a democratic country in iraq after we remove the dictator from power.
But it only resulted in a vacuum that attract many radical groups to came in to control the country. In this case, we can conclude that the militarization produce more consequences than benefit.
You have not described the alternatives, but as an economist I can help you!
The Federal Reserve is the body that decides the direction of US monetary policy. The economic decisions of the agency can be expansive, when they stimulate the economy, or restrictive, when they slow economic growth.
The two main tools the Federal Reserve has in conducting monetary policy are the<u> interest rate</u> and the <u>open market</u>.
We say that monetary policy is restrictive when the Federal Reserve increases the interest rate or sells government bonds (by decreasing the amount of money in circulation). These measures are taken to slow down the economy and prevent the inflationary process.
The opposite occurs when the Federal Reserve buys securities and / or lowers the interest rate, measures that occur to stimulate the economy when economic activity is stagnant.
The Bill of Rights this is your answer
Have 'strong countries' stop attacking other countries without any reason. This will greatly reduce terrorism.
Make the laws apply equally to the rich and the poor - worldwide.
