Industrial policy in the modern definition that one encounters usually is the concept of an industrial policy or strategy of a country(or in other words the state), which is designed to encourage the growth and development of an area of an economy or the economy as a whole. In more factual terms it is a policy in which the government favors certain industries by offering subsidies and cheap loans. Like every government policy or strategy, there are pitfalls. What are the pitfalls of industrial policy?
There are two main pitfalls other than the main one which is that industrial policy is a state-interventionist policy. The first of these pitfalls is that it removes the incentive from a favored firm to be entrepreneurial. The second of which is the truth that it becomes difficult for other firms that are not favored by industrial policy to compete with firms that are. Thus, these are some of the main pitfalls of industrial policy.
The Congress of Vienna(1814-1815), brought together the four major European powers: England, Prussia, Austria, and Russia. This was after the French Revolution which was a time of uncertainty in Europe. What were the major principles guiding the diplomats at the Congress of Vienna?
The four powers at this meeting had one goal which was to unite Europe after Napoleon. They believed that working together in this way would protect them from another devastating Revolution, such as the one in France. The key principles that were guiding these diplomats included: compensation, power balance, and legitimacy of the throne.
This Congress in Vienna influenced the replacing of Napoleon with Louis the 18th, who was the previous unfortunate king of France’s brother, which ultimately united Europe.
In the Books of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John in the New Testament of the Christian Bible, one is able to read the many accounts or stories of Jesus’s miraculous healing that he provided to many. Some of these stories included ones in which Jesus healed people who had leprosy or people who had what we would call today a chronic illness. Other than the miraculous healings there are also stories of Jesus performing miracles that were not related to healing the unwell, such as feeding five thousand people with a limited amount of food. Regardless if you believe in these stories or miracles that are contained in these books or not one must admit that they are incredible. Clearly the miracles were an important part, but exactly how important were the miracles in the book’s account of Jesus’s early ministry?
An example of one of these miracles is the story of Jesus feeding five thousand people. In the story Jesus is preaching to a very large audience of people in a remote area. Alone the number of males in the crowd was five thousand, so one can only imagine how large the audience was. Because they were in a remote area and it was not so early in the day anymore the audience had to eat. Jesus’s disciples managed to get a hold of five loaves of bread and two fish which clearly was a limited amount of food. Jesus blessed the bread and broke it, and miraculously it was enough to feed the large audience of thousands, in actuality there was food leftover.
My personal favorite stories in the New Testament were the ones of Jesus healing people who were ill or disabled. The reason why I like these stories is because you are able to read the change that those people who were healed experienced both spiritually and physically. It really showed how incredible Jesus was and how many people’s lives were changed thanks to him.
Clearly the miracles in the book’s account of Jesus’s early ministry were quite important, and they are a key piece in understanding the teachings of Jesus and who he was. These accounts of the miracles have helped me in strengthening my faith, and played an important role in me becoming a believer. Minus the religious significance of these stories(which is a very important aspect of them), they are fascinating and have been read by many.
To conclude, the miracles in the New Testament’s account of Jesus’s early ministry are quite important, and are a crucial aspect in understanding the teachings of Jesus. Regardless of a person’s beliefs one must admit that these stories are fascinating in and of themselves.
A statement that is still commonly believed is the statement: “World War II was a time of great prosperity in the United States.” Perhaps people still believe this because before the war America was in an economic low with the Great Depression, and things began looking less bleak from 1939. But how accurate is this statement in actuality?
If one actually thinks about this statement, isn’t it ridiculous to think that a country in a war was more prosperous than ever before. A lot of the working force meaning the healthy men were sent off to war. This percentage of the working force not working anymore was forty percent. During the war in the US the working force was made up of people who either had not been working for a while and people who had never done those sorts of jobs in their life; is that more efficient economically? Also the economy was a wartime economy, which meant that the government was buying more things, because of the war, which of course made it seem there was an economic increase. Overall war is not an economic thing: lives are lost, resources are spent, etc.
In short, the statement: “World War II was a time of great prosperity in the United States,” is ultimately false.
The West, though it had many ups and downs throughout history overall has been prosperous and successful. Many scholars today have some form of explanation for the reasoning behind western prosperity; many of these explanations fail to explain certain aspects of this prosperity which leaves gaps in the explanations. Deidre McCloskey, a very well-known professor of economics, has more of a sensible explanation for this matter. According to her, why do some of the traditional explanations for western prosperity fail, and what in her view is the major, unique ingredient that accounts for it?
Some of the traditional explanations for western prosperity include imperialism, private rights, resources, etc. Though those are important factors, they do not exactly account for a full explanation. McCloskey on the other hand stated that she believed that the most important explanation to western prosperity is the fact that the middle class was acknowledged in the west. The middle class is technically the backbone of society and was acknowledged as such during a lot of western history. This according to McCloskey is a major unique ingredient that accounts for western prosperity or overall success in history.
Slavery was something that existed for quite a long time, but when Britain and a number of European countries adopted this destructive institution they enslaved Black Africans, which was what we commonly think of when thinking about slavery. Eventually, enough slavery slowly began to be abolished in Britain and other countries. What were the different arguments that combined in Britain to pave the way for the abolition of slavery in that country’s overseas colonies?
Britain abolished slavery officially in 1833, some of the arguments that helped Britain pave the way for the abolition of slavery included: the Quakers who were very anti-slavery, and were one of the earlier voices to speak out against it. The famous political philosopher John Locke and a group of people known as the Levellers promoted the view of natural rights which all humans shared, which was another large influence. Also, people during this time made arguments on humanitarianism, which mainly discussed the horrible treatment of slaves, not exactly abolishing it.
In short, these were the different arguments that combined in Britain to pave the way for the abolition of slavery in that country’s overseas colonies?
The standard of living is a very controversial and discussed topic. Scholars throughout history have debated this topic on numerous sides; such as the side of the standard of living in other countries compared to one another, or the side of comparing the standard of living from each decade or century. What was the standard of living debate?
The standard of living debate was the debate between scholars on the topic of: did the industrial revolution improve the economic situation or make it worse. Industrialization brought much more jobs and more options for jobs. These new jobs of course had long hours and were very difficult and hard on the employees physically. But people have always done heavy manual labor, even before the Industrial Revolution. People before the Industrial Revolution did heavy farm labor, which was just as hard or even harder than the industrial jobs people now had.
Another important question that came into play in this debate of standard of living, is the question of child labor. Child labor has always existed; it had existed long before the Industrial. Children had to do heavy manual labor on their family’s farm, way before the Industrial Revolution began. Now, these scholars on the majority agree that the Industrial Revolution improved living conditions because it brought forth more opportunities to a wider range of people. Thus, this was the standard of living debate.
Horace was a famous Roman poet, who lived during the time of Augustus. His real name was Quintus Horatius Flaccus. Horace had a gift in my opinion with self-expression in his writing, at least from the little I’ve read of his writing, which has included some of Odes and Satires. Especially from his satires, I have noticed that he expresses his own personal view on a variety of areas, including ethics, which includes much stoicism(a belief that a smooth flow of life comes from “living in an agreement with nature”), which was a popular philosophical belief in Rome. This brings me to the question, what was Horace’s concept of personal cause and effect?
Horace had stoic beliefs which came from his education with the Epicureans, which is seen in his Satires, especially. For example, he states that one should not work very hard, but not be in poverty. His beliefs were tied to in-betweens. He saw that everything was tied together, that everything was in relation. The most major thing that happens in one’s life is death in his opinion which is because one cannot control it, and it happens to us all; which explained why he believed that working too hard obtaining riches was not worthwhile because you will die eventually anyway. Which shows his personal concept of cause and effect.
Something else that is interesting about Horace is his view on friendships, which somewhat states that if you treat your friends well your friends will treat you well in return, which is related to cause and effect. Also on the note of friendships, Horace stated that one shouldn’t judge people for their faults since they are far from being faultless. He discusses in his writing the material world. As people, we only value things that people told us to value. From his writing, one can see that he disapproves of the excess of Roman society, and how much it relies on materialism. Overall his view on personal cause and effect is straightforward and seemingly reasonable, compared to other poets’ views on the matter.
Horace’s concept of personal cause and effect was highly influenced by his education with the Epicureans, which encouraged the view of Stoicism, which is seen in his writing greatly. He saw things in relation to each other: if you treat your friends well you will be treated well by them. His personal views were also influenced by a stoic belief known as the “Golden Mean,” the belief of being in the middle of two extremes. Thus, this was Horace’s concept of personal cause and effect.
Health care is something that is important in today’s society especially in the United States. Unfortunately in the United States health costs have been rising pretty dramatically, from a number of factors. What are some of the factors that have contributed to rising-health costs in the United States?
During World War II in the United States, wages were frozen, meaning they could not be raised or lowered, which made it more difficult for employers to draw in new employees. With some thinking some of these employers began providing health care benefits which meant that they would pay for the majority of the employees health bills; this worked to attract employees pretty successfully. This overtime became the norm in American society for employers to provide health care benefits.
Because now employers pay for the majority of these health costs for their employees, these employees now do not really have to think about the costs of their health bills, unlike people who have to pay for it out of their pocket. The first decent sized problem arises when medical professionals notice this fact that people are not exactly thinking about the cost of their health bills, which gives them an incentive to rack up the prices. This is one of the main reasons why health costs in the United States are very costly, and rising.
In short, these are some of the factors that have contributed to rising-health costs in the United States.
The Industrial Revolution began in the 18th century and continued on throughout the majority of the 19th century. It was a time when industry began to boom, and products were being manufactured faster than ever before. But in a nutshell what was the industrial revolution?
The Industrial Revolution was a period in history where the effects of scientific and technological development were very apparent. Factories became a prominent change at the time with the creation of the manufacturing process. This pushed out products more quickly than ever before. This lowered prices, which enabled more people to be able to access more things. This improved the agricultural situation, and lowered the demand of agriculture because new and better tools were created to help the farmer. Overall this was a very exciting time in history, and was crucial in the development of the west.