All categories

2 years ago

Explain how a factory owner would view capitalism

History

1 answer:

xenn [34]2 years ago

5 0

Answer:

Economic theorizing

utilizes, on the one hand, mathematical techniques and, on the other, thought

experiments, parables, or stories. Progress may stagnate for various reasons.

Sometimes we are held back for lack of the technique needed to turn our stories

into the raw material for effective scientific work. At other times, we are

short of good stories to inject meaning into (and perhaps even to draw a moral

from) our models. One can strive for intellectual coherence in economics either

by attempting to fit all aspects of the subject into one overarching

mathematical structure or by trying to weave its best stories into one grand

epic.

This paper attempts to revive an old

parable, Adam Smith’s theory of manufacturing production, which has been

shunted aside and neglected because it has not fitted into the formal structure

of either neoclassical or neo-Ricardian theory. The paper attempts to persuade

not by formal demonstrations (at this stage) but by suggesting that the parable

can illuminate many and diverse problems and thus become the red thread in a

theoretical tapestry of almost epic proportions.

The subject may be approached from either

a theoretical or a historical angle. Regarding the theoretical starting-point,

it is possible to be brief since the familiar litany of complaints about the

neoclassical constant-returns production function hardly bears repeating. The

one point about it that is germane here is that it does not describe production

as a process, i.e., as an ordered sequence of operations. It is more like a

recipe for bouillabaisse where all the ingredients are dumped in a pot, (K, L),

heated up, f(·), and the output, X, is ready. This abstraction

from the sequencing of tasks, it will be suggested, is largely responsible for

the well-known fact that neoclassical production theory gives us no [204] clue

to how production is actually organized. Specifically, it does not help us

explain (1) why, since the industrial revolution, manufacturing is normally

conducted in factories with a sizeable workforce concentrated to one workplace,

or (2) why factories relatively seldom house more than one firm, or (3) why

manufacturing firms are “capitalistic” in the sense that capital

hires labor rather than vice versa.

You might be interested in

Which statement best describes the governmental power under the articles of confederation? a) a strong chief executive headed a

frutty [35]

Answer:

The states had much more power then the government

Explanation:

I took the quiz.

7 0

3 years ago

Rasek [7]

Both the Chinese and the Japanese felt that the Europeans were barbarians. They were particularly repelled by the smell of these foreigners who ate much fattier diets and who did not typically wash very often. They also felt the Europeans lacked subtlety and were rather crass in their behaviors.

The similarities, however, largely end there. The Chinese tried to simply ignore the Europeans. They were able to do this to some degree because the Europeans did not have anything they wanted. They were willing to take European silver in exchange for tea and otherwise leave the Europeans alone. This worked until around the time of the Opium Wars when the Europeans forced China to open itself more.

3 0

3 years ago

Read 2 more answers

Which group formed an alliance against the pequot during the Pequot War?

kykrilka [37]

Answer- The colonists of the Massachusetts Bay, Plymouth, in Seabrook colonies formed an alliance with the Pequot tribe.

8 0

3 years ago

BRAINLIESTTT ASAP!!

Julli [10]

The Battle of Poitiers was a major English victory against the French in the Edwardian phase of the Hundred's Year War. The battle was fought on September 19, 1356 in Nouaillé, near the city of Poitiers in Aquitaine, western France. An army of English, Welsh, Breton and Gascon troops, many of them veterans of Crécy, led by Edward, the Black Prince, defeated a larger French and allied army led by King John II of France, leading to the capture of the king, his son, and much of the French nobility.

4 0

3 years ago

Read 2 more answers

What life was like in Spanish America during the 1700’s.

DiKsa [7]

Answer:

The Spanish colonization of the Americas began under the Crown of Castile and spearheaded by the Spanish conquistadors. The Americas were invaded and incorporated into the Spanish Empire, with the exception of Brazil, British North America, and some small regions in South America and the Caribbean. The crown created civil and religious structures to administer this vast territory. The main motivations for colonial expansion were profit and the spread of Catholicism through indigenous conversions.

Beginning with the 1492 arrival of Christopher Columbus in the Caribbean and gaining control over more territory for over three centuries, the Spanish Empire would expand across the Caribbean Islands, half of South America, most of Central America and much of North America. It is estimated that during the colonial period (1492–1832), a total of 1.86 million Spaniards settled in the Americas and a further 3.5 million immigrated during the post-colonial era (1850–1950); the estimate is 250,000 in the 16th century, and most during the 18th century as immigration was encouraged by the new Bourbon Dynasty.[1] It has been estimated that over 1.86 million Spaniards emigrated to Latin America in the period between 1492 and 1824, with millions more continuing to immigrate following independence.[citation needed]

By contrast, the indigenous population plummeted by an estimated 80% in the first century and a half following Columbus's voyages, primarily through the spread of Afro-Eurasian diseases.[2] This has been argued to be the first large-scale act of genocide in the modern era.[3] One can question whether the huge drop in population be considered genocide (a deliberate consciousness effort to erase a group(s) of people from the earth), since no one at the time knew about the unseen agents which caused the death of millions. Racial mixing was a central process in the Spanish colonization of the Americas, and ultimately led to the Latin American identity, which combines African, Hispanic, and Native American cultures.[citation needed]

One source claims the Spanish conquest was responsible for 1,400,000 to 2,300,000 deaths explicitly excluding tens of millions of deaths from New World disease;[4] while Rudolph Rummel claims that 2 to 15 million indigenous peoples where killed by what he calls "democide"-(government caused murder) in the colonization of the Americas mostly in Latin America[5]-(mostly implying anywhere from just over half to all but 1 so around 1,000,001 to 14,999,999 deaths.)

The Habsburg dynasty squandered the American riches in pointless wars across Europe, defaulted on their debt several times, and left Spain bankrupt. In the early 19th century, the Spanish American wars of independence resulted in the secession and subsequent balkanization of most Spanish territories in the Americas, except for Cuba and Puerto Rico, which were finally lost to The United States in 1898, following the Spanish–American War. The loss of these territories ended Spanish rule in the Americas.

8 0

3 years ago