A tariff is a fee that other countries pay when importing goods to another country. Tariffs have been used for centuries by many countries, and have affected the rate of trade, and the efficiency of trade. Automatically tariffs on imports reduce the number of imports the country that imposes a tariff receives. Something that is less clear is the question: does a tariff on imports also reduce exports?
Trade between countries is a very important relationship that takes time to build and strengthen. Tariffs on imports create difficulty in establishing a trading relationship because it makes it difficult for other countries to send imports to a country. An indicator that a country does not favor imports from other countries. This creates higher prices in the country that is receiving the imports, and a lack of those products being imported.
When a country that imposes tariffs on imports, now wants to export products to other countries, it would be more difficult because their relationships with those countries are limited due to them imposing tariffs on those other countries, in regard to imports. Those other countries most likely put in place tariffs, which further limit the number of exports a country sends out.
Tariffs play a heavy role in society and affect trade between countries, usually in the form of limiting it
Today, there are many options for where you can get your shopping done. Amazon, Walmart, and a variety of very large corporations have risen up to the top of the shopping market, thanks to these corporations selling items more inexpensively than the average small business that would sell the same items. Regardless of the convenience of shopping at large corporations, many people choose to shop in local small businesses, which are usually more expensive. These small businesses usually sell goods that are local to the area, state, and country. Personally, would I pay 20% more to shop at a store that sells only American-made goods?
When I shop I personally like to go for quality but at a good price. Shopping at Walmart for example is great for buying inexpensive necessities, but it is not necessarily the best for buying certain items that I personally prefer of higher quality. Higher quality items are usually found at local businesses that usually sell only American or locally made goods. The only catch to buying more locally is that the items in these local small businesses are usually more expensive. The compromise is service and quality, over price.
In answering the question above, personally, I would pay 20% more to shop at a store that sells only American-made goods. Of course, this answer would depend on the item I am looking to buy; I do usually prefer to buy from local stores and to support local businesses because the service and quality of the products in these stores are usually higher.
The rise of large chain stores has led to smaller businesses turning to emphasize quality and service over inexpensive prices, which are usually local to the country, area, etc. Whilst the large chain stores focus on convenience and more affordable goods.
Today, there is an unspoken rule between shoppers in stores. If a shopper is able to find a limited item other customers do not fight with them for that item; the shopper who picked up the item first is the one who is now entitled to the item. This is also seen in stores, movie theaters, and sports game lines, where the people who are in line first can get done whatever they intend to do before anyone else in the line. “First come, first served,” is the name of this unspoken rule that has become the norm in many areas. A different rule that is mostly in auctions, is the rule of “high bid wins:” whoever offers to pay the highest amount is entitled to buy whatever is being sold. “High bid wins,” is the preferred rule in certain situations, over the rule, “first come, first served,” but the latter rule is more common today. If I had control over what areas of life implemented those rules, in what area of life would I prefer “first come, first served,” to the latter social rule?
Personally, I would prefer, “first come, first served,” when I am shopping in stores, waiting in a movie theater line, library line, or even a town fair line(which is far from ideal), over the latter rule. I believe that those areas of life would be a disaster without the “first come, first served,” rule. Who would want to undertake a ticket line for a fair, where everyone is shouting different sums of money, and fighting to state the highest sum of money? Of course, it is important to acknowledge that the rule “first come, first served,” has become an issue in society today, especially in regard to medical care, but it would be ludicrous to do away with this rule.
Society today is governed by unspoken rules, which help ensure that daily life in society will run smoothly. “First come, first served,” and “high bid wins,” are two examples of rules governing society regarding purchasing items, lines, and most monetary exchanges. “First come, first served,” is the rule seen most frequently in our society today, and governs many areas, including medical care. Though without this rule many areas of life today would be disorganized, this rule is not perfect and should not be applied to some of the areas that it is applied to today.
Today, we have access to more historic information than ever before. New information that counteracts the old historical “truths,” are becoming more and more common today, thanks to the discoveries of numerous experts. Though this is the case today and has been for the last one hundred years or so, the history textbooks provided in high school and college courses are limited in information. This is as if these history textbooks were designed to push out a certain narrative regardless of it being the truly accurate one. In the first ten lessons of the Ron Paul Curriculum grade twelve history course this issue is discussed. Why do I believe that the information covered in these ten lessons is not covered in American history textbooks or courses today?
An example of how a certain narrative that is not necessarily accurate is popularized, is with the question of, “was Christopher Columbus the first person to reach North America?” This was disproved when an old Viking Village was discovered which changed the narrative to: “Vikings first who did nothing, and then Columbus who did something.” The belief is the popular one today and is widely believed by many, regardless of the truth that there have been finds in America that would disprove this belief. Even though these finds that disprove the statement are available on various sources such as the internet to some extent, many individuals do not even know of the existence of these discoveries. This is thanks to how the guilds of education and the media suppress the information of these discoveries from reaching the majority of the public.
A number of reasons could have been the cause of this issue in the education system, but a leading one is pride. People despise being proven wrong, and history experts are likely no different. The individuals involved in the education system do not want to admit that someone else or a different group of people discovered something that was real that disproved the belief that they were pushing. The only way that these individuals would change their agenda or to begin pushing the recent and more accurate belief is if their own people made the discovery or did extra research on the already discovered new belief. Sadly, the education system truly seems to only put out new information when it benefits them at the moment. Because the information that counteracts the “Vikings first, who did nothing, then Columbus who did something,” narrative does not benefit the system, the new information will not be pushed out anytime soon.
In conclusion, the reason why I believe that the information covered in the first ten lessons of the grade twelve Ron Paul Curriculum course is not covered in American high schools and college textbooks today is because this information does not fit in the agenda of the American education guilds. It counteracts the narrative they have been pushing out for decades.
Don Quixote, written by Miguel de Cervantes, is a unique and interesting tale, about a wannabe knight. Don Quixote, who is the main character of the story, was a man who was enthralled with works of literature on knighthood. This obsession in knighthood eventually leads Don Quixote to certain madness and causes him to make the decision to take an oath of knighthood. The madness goes to the point that Don Quixote begins to see things, distort reality; even to the point that he convinces a simple farmer named, Sancho Panza to assist him on his so-called quests of knighthood. Near the end of the novel, Don Quixote who was close to his death regains some of his sanity, and on his deathbed swears another oath: an oath of repentance.
These two oaths that Don Quixote swore on clearly contradicted each other; how was Don Quixote’s knight-errant oath in conflict with his deathbed oath?
During Don Quixote’s quest of chivalry and knighthood, he commits many questionable deeds. Though his oath of knighthood stated that he would protect the weak and uphold justice, in many instances he went against the technicalities of this oath, even doing the opposite. Because he had lost his sanity, his actions as a “knight,” often did not make sense, and went against the moral standard that was upheld in his life. He became violent: even blindly attacking innocent people because of his lost sense of reality. Don Quixote is not a young spry man, he often gets battered in his “battles,” but this does not stop him or help him see sense to stop his madness. This madness even led him to kill an innocent Friar, because he believed that this Friar was a magician.
Don Quixote’s relationship with Sancha Panza (a simple farmer), was a close one. Sancha Panza follows along with the madman’s decisions and antics, even to the point that he began to adopt some of Don Quixote’s insanity. Sancha Panza is there when Don Quixote regains his sanity, he is also there during his death.
When Don Quixote begins to regain his sanity, he realizes his wrongdoing and becomes deeply depressed. On his deathbed he swears an oath that goes against his previous oath of chivalry. He confesses his sins and repents of all of the harm he had done, which puts him at peace. Don Quixote passes peacefully in his own bed as a new man, surrounded by the people who were close to him in life. The reason why this deathbed oath conflicted with his oath of knighthood is due to his different mental states when swearing to these oaths. The first oath, Don Quixote was falling into his madness, and truly was not in a right state of mind. The second oath, he had now regained his sanity and realized his wrongdoing, which led him to decide that the past oath was no longer valid.
Education is a very important part of our society, and is one of the key factors in building and shaping the future generation of individuals. Today in American society there are more options for education than ever, thanks to the growth of the internet, and the rising movement known as homeschooling. Even though the concept of homeschooling is expanding like never before, the majority of parents still enroll their children into brick and mortar public schools. These public schools are administered by the state, and funded by the people, which makes one assume that the people are in charge of dictating the form of education these schools are teaching to the students. Does he who pays the piper call the tune in education?
Dissecting the sentence above into more simple terms: “he,” refers to the people, the “piper,” refers to the state, and “tune,” refers to the form of education being taught. Which in turn means that the sentence is asking: “does the people, who fund the state, in charge of the form of education being taught.”
The answer to the question above is mostly no. People who pay the state in regards to state run education do not have very much say over the form of education being taught in the public schools. The state is the entity that is ultimately in charge of the form of education being taught in the schools, regardless of the fact that the people fund the schools. People do have the ability to complain, go to boards, the local government, etc to help influence change in the school system, but that is limited, and ultimately not very effective in bringing about long-lasting change in the system.
Homeschooling is greatly expanding today in America, with more parents concluding that homeschooling is the best option for their childrens’ education journey. A key factor in why many parents have turned to homeschooling is because parents have little say on what form of education is being taught in the public schools. Ultimately regardless of the truth that these parents fund the public school system itself. He who pays the piper does not call the tune in education.
Macbeth, by William Shakespeare, is a play about a man named Macbeth, who receives a prophecy that he would become king. Learning of this prophecy Macbeth and his wife become enthralled, to the point that they even commit murder and treason: killing the king, to gain early kingship. After his numerous crimes to become king, he becomes paranoid, and even sees ghosts of the people he and his wife had murdered. Macbeth’s wife has a different attitude on the situation and stated simply: “What’s done is done.” Near the end of the play, the wrong deeds that were done catch up to Macbeth. His wife commits suicide, and he is killed in battle. On the note of Lady Macbeth’s statement, “what’s done is done,” was it correct to the predicament of the situation?
Macbeth gains power for a short period after killing the king, but he loses his humanity, sanity, and experiences much guilt, this gets to the point that he begins to see the ghosts of his murdered victims. To maintain his position as king, he and his wife have to kill more people. Macbeth could not sleep, and his emotional state became worse. His wife who puts on a stronger facade was not doing much better herself and was struggling with the emotional consequences of their crimes. Their situation becomes worse; their emotional state becomes bleak. Lady Macbeth falls first, and commits suicide, Macbeth soon follows, though he is killed in battle.
A statement that Lady Macbeth said to her husband, in an attempt to help improve his emotional state after the crimes, was the statement of: “What’s done is done,” This statement morbidly enough, clearly describes the predicament that Macbeth, and Lady Macbeth were in. You cannot bring someone back after murdering them. Murder is a deed that cannot be undone, it is permanent, and the consequences are permanent. Killing the king could not be undone, and now they had to live with the consequences of their decision. Though this statement was most likely intended to help make Macbeth feel better about himself, it accurately described the predicament they were in.
William Shakespeare truly had a gift of writing tragedies. The way that he built up the story of Macbeth, and his faltering emotional state after his crimes is described, shows pure literary genius. Shakespeare, thanks to his knowledge of human nature, created an accurate portrayal of how Macbeth and his wife justified their terrible actions. “What’s done is done,” is a statement that shows how Lady Macbeth attempted to justify their actions, though this statement more or less described the bleak predicament they were in. Thus, what’s done is truly done, in this play.
The literary piece: Doctor Johannes Faustus tells the tale of the promiscuous character, Doctor Faustus, who sold his soul to the devil.The book is written in an autobiographical style, and covers the life story of Doctor Faustus, and how he became a fallen man, who was involved in sorcery and other forms of magic. It is debatable that this story is an accurate story, but regardless it still covers in a sense the important aspects of a person’s life. The concept of “selling the soul,” to the devil, is a key theme in the story and is discussed throughout the story. This theme has lived on throughout history and is encountered in other pieces of literature including in some modern films and music. The question is: why has this theme of “selling the soul,” remained popular since 1587?
Doctor Faustus’s life story is an interesting one, to say the least. At the beginning of his life, his Christian parents sent him away to live under the roof of a relative, to hopefully give him a better life. From the beginning it was clear that Faustus was deviant at heart, this led him to eventually deal with magic and the concept of sorcery. Sorcery and magic was the path that led Faustus to make a blood pact with Satan. This pact stated that Faustus would die when the pact ran out. The curious thing about Faustus was that he even attempted to return back to Christianity but instead, he renewed the pact. At the end of his miserable life, Faustus became further distraught and fearful, even to the point of wanting out; regardless he still died with the pact over his head.
The moral of this story is a simple one to understand. This story is a warning to people to not go down the wrong path as Faustus did. Interestingly enough this theme was not supported throughout the majority of the story, even to the point that some of Faustus’s wrong actions were not questioned. Faustus as a character goes through little character development and remains with the same ill character in the end.
Selling the soul to the devil is an interesting concept that has remained somewhat popular since the 16th century. This concept can be encountered in various forms including movies, music, etc. Because this theme has lived on during the test of time, why has it remained popular since the 16th century? There are a variety of reasons why this theme has remained popular even today, but the main reason is that people most likely are curious about this theme. Selling your soul sounds frightening, dangerous, and even thrilling, and as humans, we are easily curious and are attracted to things that may or may not be necessarily healthy for ourselves. It has remained popular because of this curiosity and interest.
The main education system today is in the form of public schools which are supported by taxes, and run by the state. This system has been in place in the west for many years and has become the standard in the majority of other non-western countries. Many people rely on the public school system to educate their children today, and many individuals have been educated in this method. Though the public school system has been used and adopted by the majority there are still individuals who question the system and are concerned about its flaws of the public school system, especially relating to it being run by the state. A debate or question to ask in regard to the flaws of the public system is to compare it to a tax-supported church. Is a tax-supported school any different in principle from a tax-supported church?
First and foremost many will disagree with the concept of tax-supported churches because it is clear that one does not want the state to manipulate or use the church to push their own political agenda. Any place of worship including a church is purely religious and should not be used for anything else other than being a place of worship. This explains why tax-supported churches are a rarity in today’s society.
The question is, is this any different from the tax-funded, government-run schools in today’s society? Tax-funded schools are very much at risk of having the state who runs them push out their own political agenda, to control the outcome of the student’s political beliefs or beliefs in general before they actually have a chance to discover their views themselves. Historically public education has been used as a method by various governments to bring the children of the country to not question the state regardless of if they were wrong. With the fundamentals of both the tax-supported church and school, it is clear that both are quite similar in nature, and both have similar risks.
In conclusion, there is little difference between tax-supported, public schools and tax-supported churches. Both are run by the state, and both are at risk of having the state push out their own personal agenda.
John Foxe was a 16th-century English historian, who is best known for his work titled: Acts and Monuments, more commonly known as Foxe’s Book of Martyrs. This written work retold the sufferings that the Protestant Church experienced during the reign of the Catholic Queen Mary. It described the executions and severe punishments that influential protestants such as Lady Jane Grey experienced during this time. In regard to Foxe’s writing style, a question that steps forth is the question of: is the language of Foxe still compelling today?
Foxe’s writing clearly was compelling during his time because his written works continued to be published, and are still able to be read today, which means that his historic writing is accurate historically. Yes, his writing was written in an older style of English, which the majority of modern readers will have to take some time getting used to, and there are many instances of bias(especially towards the Catholic Church), which is unavoidable. The historical events Foxe covered in Acts and Monuments, were important in influencing England’s transition from a Catholic nation to an Anglican one.
Examples of some of the historical events that Foxe covered in, Acts and Monuments, included. The execution of Thomas Cranmer, who annulled the marriage between Queen Mary’s mother and her father Henry the 8th, Lady Jane Grey who had become queen for a short period of time, and a number of other important individuals who did not lean towards the Catholic ideology, or went against Queen Mary in some way. These persecutions of Protestants continued on until the reign of Queen Elizabeth, which turned the tide to the persecution of Catholics in England, along with Protestant groups that did not conform with the Church of England.
These historical events covered are compelling, and most probably pique interest in individuals who have an interest in history, but the larger question is of Foxe’s writing style or language. Is the language of Foxe still compelling today? Putting aside the interesting historical events that Foxe covered and focusing on the writing style itself, I would say that his writing language would not be compelling today. This answer is influenced by the factor of an older style of English. Foxe wrote in an older style of English which most modern readers are not accustomed to or used to. For a piece of literature to be compelling to a majority of readers, it has to be written in a style that is understood and grasped by those readers.
Acts and Monuments by John Foxe is a unique piece of historic literature, that was written in a time that many modern history works cover. Though this work has survived the test of time the writing style in this piece of literature would not be compelling to most modern readers, due to it being written in an older form of English. Foxe’s language is not compelling today.