Answer:
What made the Great Depression "Great" was the government response. Constant changes the regulatory environment, tax increases, massive deficits, and failure to let the market correct paralyzed the economy in its depressed state for 15 years.
Both were caused primarily by an over expansion of credit rooted in loose money supply. The monetary response to the current recession has been different. Rather than tightening to force the market to bottom, the Fed has maintained low rates in an effort to re-inflate the bubble conditions. Hoover/Bush & FDR/Obama responses are similar as all tried to spend their way out of the problem.
1929 crash:
After WWI, Britain reset the pound to the pre-WWI level even though their money supply had far exceeded pre-WWI levels. In an effort to slow the flight of gold from Britain, the US federal reserve (led by Benjamin Strong) lowered interest rates. As always, artificially low interest rates caused massive distortions in asset values. Money flowed into the stock market and people who would not normally have been stockholders bought stocks in place of other investments that would have yielded better interest rates absent fed policy. Margin was used excessively because the real cost of leveraging was distorted by fed interest rate policy.
The fed continually lowered interest rates all the way into 1929. When the bubble popped, they tightened policy and raised rates. This contributed the deflationary spiral; however, the deflationary spiral could not have been as severe without the loose policy during the bubble.
2008 crash:
Beginning in the early 1990s, the federal reserve (led by Alan Greenspan) lowered rates while monitoring consumer prices as indicators of inflation. They ignored bubbles in the stock market directly caused by their inflationary monetary policy. When the stock bubble popped, they lowered rates further and pushed misdirected investment towards other assets - most commonly housing.
After the attacks of 9/11/2001, the fed pushed rates to 0 (long term rates were effectively negative and continue to be).
Explanation:
On August 18, 1795, President George Washington signs the Jay (or “Jay’s”) Treaty with Great Britain.
This treaty, known officially as the “Treaty of Amity Commerce and Navigation, between His Britannic Majesty; and The United States of America” attempted to diffuse the tensions between England and the United States that had risen to renewed heights since the end of the Revolutionary War. The U.S. government objected to English military posts along America’s northern and western borders and Britain’s violation of American neutrality in 1794 when the Royal Navy seized American ships in the West Indies during England’s war with France. The treaty, written and negotiated by Supreme Court Chief Justice (and Washington appointee) John Jay, was signed by Britain’s King George III on November 19, 1794 in London. However, after Jay returned home with news of the treaty’s signing, Washington, now in his second term, encountered fierce Congressional opposition to the treaty; by 1795, its ratification was uncertain.
Leading the opposition to the treaty were two future presidents: Thomas Jefferson and James Madison. At the time, Jefferson was in between political positions: he had just completed a term as Washington’s secretary of state from 1789 to 1793 and had not yet become John Adams’ vice president. Fellow Virginian James Madison was a member of the House of Representatives. Jefferson, Madison and other opponents feared the treaty gave too many concessions to the British. They argued that Jay’s negotiations actually weakened American trade rights and complained that it committed the U.S. to paying pre-revolutionary debts to English merchants. Washington himself was not completely satisfied with the treaty, but considered preventing another war with America’s former colonial master a priority.
Ultimately, the treaty was approved by Congress on August 14, 1795, with exactly the two-thirds majority it needed to pass; Washington signed the treaty four days later. Washington and Jay may have won the legislative battle and averted war temporarily, but the conflict at home highlighted a deepening division between those of different political ideologies in Washington, D.C. Jefferson and Madison mistrusted Washington’s attachment to maintaining friendly relations with England over revolutionary France, who would have welcomed the U.S. as a partner in an expanded war against England.
The correct answer to this open question is the following.
Although there are no options provided, we can answer the following.
In many parts of the country, the wiring method in unfinished basements is non-metallic-sheated cable in the ceiling and EMT on the walls for receptacles and switches.
This cable is flexible and is covered by plastic sheathing to protect the conductors that are insulated. In 1922, the company Romex created this type of cable. The use of this material became common in the 1960s when woven rayon was replaced by plastic. Architects started to use this Non-Metallic cable in American houses for electrical wiring. As it was hidden, it did not mess with the house decoration. Another great advantage of its popularity is that it is non-expensive.
There are two reasons for this.
1. To discourage the sales of certain products
For example, the government impose a really high tax for cigarettes and gasoline. Both of these products tend to create damages to the environment and the health of the people who use them. Because of this, the government impose a high taxes in order to make the price become more expensive
2, To increase government budget.
The taxes that citizens pay to the government would be allocated to the budget that the government can use to fund their programs (such as infrastructure building, grants, health benefits, military , etc).
Answer:
C. reaction formation
Explanation:
Based on the information provided within the question it can be said that this scenario is describing the term known as reaction formation. This term refers to a defense mechanism in which an individual deals with certain emotions and impulses by exaggerating the direct opposite of that tendency. Such as the individuals in this scenario.
