As I understand it, Laissez-faire ideology maintains that the "free market" is the best way to determine what businesses can and should do. This means that businesses, in competition with one another, should be free to determine their paths free from any government rules or regulations. The belief is that the competition among various businesses will ultimately result in the best outcomes for society in general - Adam Smith's "invisible hand". As part of this philosophy, workers should also be free to compete with each other and choose to work wherever they wish and this process will also result in the best results for the workers as well.
However, isn't there a huge assumption in this philosophy? Doesn't the whole justification of this belief depends on the condition that there is perfect competition and that any company and any worker have the equal ability to compete with one another?
What if there is no perfect competition? What if some companies have advantages - due to any of a whole array of reasons - that place them in a non-competitive position vis a vis their competitors? Without perfect competition then other companies are not necessarily able to compete with other companies that have certain advantages. If such a situation exists, then advantaged companies may have the ability to pursue a course that results in their private benefit, but not necessarily to the benefit of society as a whole. The same would apply to workers in that reduced competition among companies would result in decreased leverage for potential employees.
To recap, if the Laissez-faire ideology maintains the best economic policy for society as a whole, and it depends on there being perfect competition on an ongoing basis with minimal government intervention, doesn't it fall apart if there is less than the perfect competition?
Answer:
the needs of the nation have changed.
Explanation:
The role of the president has evolved over time because the the needs of the nation have changed.
The needs of the nations have changed with time and the President being responsible for the well-being of the nation had to also adjust his roles also to meet the growing needs and demands of the populace.
Japan was the third member of the Axis powers. The other options were on the opposing Allied forces
Answer:
World War I was the first time since the Berlin Conference of 1884 that European colonial powers fought each other on a large scale, and not over issues related to their respective colonies.
This situation implied a general weakening of the European powers, which neglected the affairs of their colonies to dedicate their efforts to solve the war and the well-being of their nations. Therefore, this caused the colonial powers to lose power in Africa, thus starting anti-colonial movements that deepened after the Second World War. In addition, in the war itself, many countries, such as Germany, lost their colonies to other nations, which caused the inhabitants of the colonies themselves to lose a sense of belonging to their colonizers.
Answer:Unit Essential Question: What does learning about the choices people made during the Weimar Republic, the rise of the Nazi Party, and the Holocaust teach us about the power and impact of our choices today?
How did the Nazi Party, a small and unpopular political group in 1920, become the most powerful political party in Germany by 1933?
Through class discussion and a written response, students will examine how choices made by individuals and groups contributed to the rise of the Nazi Party in the 1920s and 1930s.
Students will label the 1920 Nazi Party platform and use it to draw conclusions about the party’s universe of obligation and core values.
