greatest books 19th century image
_
Despite the best efforts of Adam Smith and the rest of Classical economics, Mercantilism, governmental interference in the economy for the benefit of specific parties at the expense of others, was not relegated to the history books during the 19th century. Instead, Neo-Mercantilists emerged in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, such as "Neo-Classical" and Keynesian economics. After the Federal Reserve, itself a Mercantilist program, caused the Great Depression by inflating the money supply, the Neo-Mercantilists successfully blamed laissez-faire for the Depression even though their economic fallacies were responsible. So, we have seen an unrestricted expansion of Mercantilism for the last 7 or 8 decades with no end in sight.
Why have the discredited fallacies called Mercantilism that were debunked by Classical and Austrian economists survived to this day? Why haven't they disappeared into the history books yet?
Answer
I don't think you can say Mercantilism dominates today's government policies and practices - in the U.S. anyway. But as with nearly all economic theories, some parts survive in some form.
Some of the main government goals of Mercantilism are
- positive trade balance
- positive foreign reserves.
Compare that to the U.S. today:
- Huge Trade deficit
- Huge government deficit with most debt being held by the chinese and japan.
The Bush adminstration has said that "Deficits don't matter", a clear repudiation of Mercantilist fundamentals.
Where are you seeing unrestricted expansion of Mercantilism?
I don't think you can say Mercantilism dominates today's government policies and practices - in the U.S. anyway. But as with nearly all economic theories, some parts survive in some form.
Some of the main government goals of Mercantilism are
- positive trade balance
- positive foreign reserves.
Compare that to the U.S. today:
- Huge Trade deficit
- Huge government deficit with most debt being held by the chinese and japan.
The Bush adminstration has said that "Deficits don't matter", a clear repudiation of Mercantilist fundamentals.
Where are you seeing unrestricted expansion of Mercantilism?
In Great Expectations, how successful is Dickens in the portrayal of 19th century childhood?
Cherry Blo
Great Expectations is one of Dickensâ most vivid presentations of growing up. What means does he use to make it so effective and how successful is it as a portrayal of 19th century childhood?
I will be grateful for any help given.
Many thanks!
Answer
What Dickens portrayed is how poor most people were.
Their education was "hit and miss", and often depended upon luck.
Education was something only the wealthy middle class and rich could afford, and you had to learn good behavior, how to act like a gentleman.
Ladies often did not go to school.
The role of women was greatly restricted, being a wife and mother was about only option. Poor women could became housekeepers, servants. Wealthy women did not work outside their home, but enjoyed greater luxury, if they married well.
I don't remember the names of the main characters now, it's been a long time since I read this book. But, the key character was destined to be a manual worker, and only improved himself because he was sent off to become an apprentice as I recall, at a respected firm.
This was main way to learn a good trade in those days, become an apprentice, and work for a master.
To become " middle class" mean you had to learn to talk better, write better, and have the best manners. (compared to the poorer lower class)
Marriage often wasn't about love, it was about making a good connection, with a more wealthy family.
Marriage then was more about finances, and living a better life, not about romance.
Of course the main character lost out, he wanted romance and love, with his childhood woman.
She however, stayed true to her upbringing, and did not marry for love, as much as a better social position.
That was what was most important in 19th century, your class, or social position.
What Dickens portrayed is how poor most people were.
Their education was "hit and miss", and often depended upon luck.
Education was something only the wealthy middle class and rich could afford, and you had to learn good behavior, how to act like a gentleman.
Ladies often did not go to school.
The role of women was greatly restricted, being a wife and mother was about only option. Poor women could became housekeepers, servants. Wealthy women did not work outside their home, but enjoyed greater luxury, if they married well.
I don't remember the names of the main characters now, it's been a long time since I read this book. But, the key character was destined to be a manual worker, and only improved himself because he was sent off to become an apprentice as I recall, at a respected firm.
This was main way to learn a good trade in those days, become an apprentice, and work for a master.
To become " middle class" mean you had to learn to talk better, write better, and have the best manners. (compared to the poorer lower class)
Marriage often wasn't about love, it was about making a good connection, with a more wealthy family.
Marriage then was more about finances, and living a better life, not about romance.
Of course the main character lost out, he wanted romance and love, with his childhood woman.
She however, stayed true to her upbringing, and did not marry for love, as much as a better social position.
That was what was most important in 19th century, your class, or social position.
Powered by Yahoo! Answers
Posts
Comments :
Post a Comment