However, you shouldn't make the assumption that devotion to ideology was all that was behind Cold War animosity; countries tend to be more complaint trading partners with countries that share their political systems and both Stalin and the Cold War Era presidents in the US knew this. The tension eventually built, but no one wanted to go to actual war again after the colossal massacre of WWII, hence the term Cold War. 2. Describe and explain the ideological differences between the United Stated and the Soviet Union. In 1917, Russia became a communist country with an agenda of converting the world to communism.
He argued that reparations forced on Germany by the Allies after WW1 were far too severe and would cripple the German economy to such an extent and would lead to socio-political problems in the future which would not be in the interest of the Allies. He saw that the financial burden of reparations on Germany would not allow the development of a stable economy. Could WW2 have been averted if Keynes had been listened to at the Peace Conference at Versailles in 1918 where he strongly put this argument? 3. What was Keynes fundamental criticism of Neo-Classical Economics?
The question is not as complex as it may seem. Both sides have strong viewpoints representing their respective opinions, and even the population of the United States is divided when it comes to taking a stand in the issue. Those who favor free trade think that an open trading system with few limitations and little government involvement is best. On the other hand, those in favor of protectionism believe that governments must take action to regulate trade and subsidize industries to protect the domestic economy. In United States, free trade advocates typically argue that consumers benefit from freer trade because foreign competition forces U.S. companies to keep prices low and provides a greater selection of goods and services.
Adam Smith lived through a mercantile system, which he highly opposed therefore the idea of a free market system seemed to be the best solution in a time period before the industrial revolution. Unlike Smith, Marx had personal accounts of the industrial revolution, therefore he would have “anticipated the high- technology, global interests of modern institutions, dangers of consuming non- renewable natural resources and the issue of post industrial unemployment.” Both tried to create a system where everyone could be happy but their views on capitalism as the better political system conflicted. Karl Marx’s and Adam Smith’s views on capitalism differed in terms of the division of labour, competition and the class structure in society. “The trade of the pin- maker: a workman not educated to this business (which the division of labour has rendered a distinct trade), nor acquainted with the use of the machinery employed in it (to the
Another perspective, the Revisionist view initiated by the historian William Appleman Willams regards that the American’s attitude to dispense their ideology of capitalism as well as their tactics in using military means to dominate with world trade was the cause. On the other hand, historians such as John Lewis Gaddis follow a Post-Revisionist view that suggests neither countries were to blame and in fact the breakdown of relations was due to the misunderstandings during a period of mass “growing sense of insecurity” and acted upon failure to acknowledged each others fears. However, it is possible to suggest that one country is held responsible for the origins of the Cold War through the occurrences during this time. This discussion will outline these factors by debating the validity of the question in whether or not it was the Soviet’s attitude and involvement that were to blame. In February 1945 at the Yalta Conference which involved the “Big Three” displayed the highpoint of an inter-allied cooperation.
The article “The Cashless Society Almost Here and With Some Very Sinister Implications” contends that the government is currently setting in place a global disaster that will push us into a cashless society. How would a cashless economy be different from our paper money and coin system? The author, Patrick Henningsen, demonstrates that the world as we know it will be dramatically different. The ease of electronic systems has made using paper money unpopular. While swiping your credit card at your local retailer seems like a good idea, there is a much deeper implication of a cashless society.
Economics Laws – Poor vs. Wealthy Countries Universal Economic Laws The discussion question posed by the author of our course text book asks if we agree with the idea posed by many social scientists that say poorer Third World countries should not embrace and follow models based on a universal economic law (Skousen, 2010, p. 46). I would tend to agree with that point of view. The large number of variables that would have to be taken into account to produce accurate universal economic models that cover all of the countries in the world seems out of our reach at this time. In fact Skousen states about economic predictions in general – “Uncertainty exists for two reasons: the vast, complex number of factors and players involved in the economy, and the fact that behind the numbers are individuals who are constantly changing and reevaluating their motives.
Capitalism vs. Environment Many people believe that capitalism is the American way; excepting the ideal that the all mighty dollar is what is most important for this world’s survival. Though that may be true for the economy, others like Gus Speth, believe that most environmental deterioration is a result of systematic failures of the capitalism we have today. (1:Gus Speth:“Capitalism vs environment: Time to take sides” ) Whatever the case may be, neither is going away, yet both seem to be dwindling. One might say their demise even go hand in hand Looking at an environmentalist point of view, the environment is becoming decrepit and our natural resources are dwindling due to the effects of the ever so “evil” capitalistic mindset of this world.
As mentioned previously, Adam Smith, a highly regarded economist, demanded that in order for economic success, the”invisible hand of the market” must be in control, rather than the government. This notion involves the establishment of free enterprise and greater openness to international trade and investment (e.g the abolition of tariffs). Free enterprise results in the value of various goods and services being determined by supply and demand meaning that suppliers are unable to manipulate prices. It also encourages investment as people can see the potential to make a return – without the government capping prices. On the other hand, this idea of free trade is highly disadvantageous, and even harmful, to the Global South with the Global North dictating prices.
The liberal capitalist US economy needed ever increasing trade and investment opportunities to overcome its endemic weaknesses, (Mccauley). The Marshall Plan was designed to create an informal American empire in Europe and thereby to extend American political influence over the USSR itself. Roosevelt and Truman and their advisors already predicted the threat of Soviet Expansionism, and that they tried to restrain the Soviets from changing the international order in a way that would have been as dangerous to Western interests. Therefore Marshall Plan then led to Truman Doctrine, which not only did it influence Europe to be under control by American imperialism, but also did not support Soviet Union because the United States inserted anti-communism propaganda. American pressure and the Western decision to