To what extent were the policies the Republican governments 1921-29 responsible for both the economic boom Essay Example

To what extent were the policies the Republican governments 1921 To what extent were the policies the Republican governments 1921-29 responsible for both the economic boom Essay To what extent were the policies the Republican governments 1921-29 responsible for both the economic boom Essay Essay Topic: History The Republic The economic boom and bust of the 1920s would have occurred without the Republican economics policies that were introduced. The Republicans felt that it was necessary to allow the economy to grow without state intervention unless it was urged upon by the industry. Such freedom did in fact allow for the likes of Henry Ford to innovate and take advantage of the beneficial circumstances brought about by the First World War. The significant increase in trade wasnt sustainable and for the reason that it wasnt stabilised the economic collapse took place in the absence of Republican policies to regulate growth. The Republicans built on the conditions that were provided by the First World War. After the War, Europe was dependant upon American industry to be provided by American products ensuring trade for America. However, credit can be given to the Republican government for the introduction of the Fordney-McCumber tariff. This raised import duties on farm products, chemicals, textiles, chinaware, cutlery, guns and other industrial goods. This move towards Protectionism ensure that there wasnt a two-way trade between America and Europe, allowing for a domestic market to grow whilst the Europe dependant on the US economy. This policy in Hardings government can be seen as the basis of US economic prosperity and indicates the importance of the policies made by the Republicans. Although policies were infrequent they encouraged widespread production, which could be considered as a major contribution to the economic boom and the subsequent economic collapse. The policy for small taxes was a strong belief of the Republican Party and achieved the rise in industry. Otherwise an increase in taxes would have reduced the disposable income that was vital for the growth in companies that sold domestic appliances. It could be said that these Republican policies did not just contribute towards the boom but actually were responsible for the initiation of the boom by providing the perfect conditions for a quick boom. The lack of regulations ensured that prosperity wasnt hindered and businesses werent deterred from expanding. This started the possibilities of the get rich-quick schemes that flooded America causing a nation to make money without having to consider the long term consequences. Republicanism contributed to this short-sightedness within American society that instigated the economic collapse. Encouraged by Republican policies this quick-fix attitude was enlarged by the start of credit that was highly dependant on both consumer demand and confidence. Consumer products were bought on a massive scale on the basis that the customers were certain that they could make the repayments in order to keep such domestic appliances. This new grown confidence of prosperity and belief in economic growth shared by many families brought about the demand for these new products. Confidence was so high in the economy that ordinary people began buying on the margin, the purchase of shares on the credit that the shares were definitely going to increase in value, enough to pay off the credit and to leave people with profit. This heightened the reliance on the growth of the economy and instigated further confidence, causing the economy to be uncontrolled by anyone, meaning that a small stumble would bring about total. The delicate nature that the economy wasnt completely due to the Republican policies, however, the Republicans didnt feel that there wasnt any need for state intervention since it wasnt seen to be a national issue. Therefore the lack of policy in regulation in the banking system that created an increase in buying on the margin caused the fragile economy that collapsed precisely due to the lack of intervention. Although the Republicans were responsible the confidence and the increase in credit was due to the fact that it was probably the first time that the public had more money than required to survive and felt that it was to continue and didnt know what to do and thus brought about the lack of savings. The boom wasnt a long term growth that raised society than what could have been achieved by regulation. Using the word boom it refers to the significant rise in a short space of time and therefore as a consequence means that it would have to fall suddenly unless the economy could be underpinned by a stronger infrastructure. Long term would have ensured that 33%of the total national income in 1929 wasnt held by just 5% of the population. Such a figure can question whether it was in fact a national boom at all, since it failed to permeate to lower sects of society, however caused for those lower sects to be confident that they would find prosperity and go onto purchase products on credit. The fact that prosperity didnt reach the whole of society meant that the marker became saturate with the sale of the same domestic products without the people to purchase them because either they already had them or had too many loans. The Republican Government with the introduction of taxation would have brought greater support in need, who could fuel the economy further since groups like blacks, rural workers and urban poor would be able to purchase the appliances and increase share purchase. However, the lack of taxation mean that growth took place exponentially and during the period of growth there would be no slow down. On the other hand, collapse was made certain by the lack of support given towards the economy and bringing about the end of such growth. It must be remembered that this was the first time that such mass growth took place in American history and meant that it wasnt possible to create a model for the growth of the economy because noone really had an idea what this expansion would result in. The flaws within the system, causing a brittle economy should be held more responsible because I dont feel that there would have been a collapse, rather more of a slowdown throughout the nation. These flaws were triggered by the lack of regulation by the Republicans but the However, perhaps the most compelling argument in their defence is the lack of precedent. Never before had such growth been seen as even possible, nor the depression which was to follow. In such light, it is perhaps unfair to judge Republican policies too harshly for their inability to anticipate the hitherto unknown. It is also clear that Republicanism was not responsible for initiating the Roaring 20s, but rather for adopting a policy of non-intervention which allowed the boom to proceed almost entirely unimpeded. As a result, Republican responsibility must be judged in terms not of what they did, but what they did not. In doing very little to regulate nor intervene in the boom from 1921-29, successive Republican administrations were, to the greatest extent, responsible for ensuring that what occurred was not a long-term trend of steady, social economic growth, but a short-lived boom. Furthermore, rather than making efforts to convert this into growth which permeated throughout, bringing even longer-term benefits to American society as a whole, these policies were content to sit back and allow America to become a gambling den on a majestic scale, almost entirely dependent on the fickle nature of human confidence and reliant on an impossibly limitless demand for new products which soon reached saturation point. As a result, Republican policies must be seen to a great extent responsible for shaping the nature of the economic boom, if not instigating it, and in doing do, directly responsible for the inevitable bust which followed.

For The Bible Tells Me So

For The Bible Tells Me So Fundamentalist Christians and Homosexuality The viewpoint of the fundamentalist Christians concerning homosexuality is that it is a sin and an abomination to mankind. Several fundamental Christians such as Mary Lou Wallner and Reitans openly reject their children who declare themselves as homosexuals.Advertising We will write a custom essay sample on For The Bible Tells Me So specifically for you for only $16.05 $11/page Learn More Wallner rejects her daughter while the Reitans gang up with the Minnesota community to through a brick at Jake for declaring that he is gay. Besides, the Missouri congressman is at cross road whether to support his gay daughter or reject her despite her assistance towards his presidential campaign. In addition, Gene Robinson who doubles up as a gay bishop has to live with rejection from his parents who are part of the conservative Episcopal Bethany Church. The many young religious persons who are gay have a difficulty of balancing the relationship with their families and their sexuality. Same as the views of the fundamentalist Christians, the book of Leviticus 18:22 in the Bible condemns homosexuality in totality as detestable before God. Opposing Views on Homosexuality The homosexual sympathizers, the homosexuals, and several experts offer an opposing viewpoint concerning the Bible and homosexuality. The first argument is that only one or two verses in the entire Bible mention homosexuality and it is barely a topic in the holy book. In the views of Rev. Dr. Keene, biblical literalism can be blamed for demonizing homosexuality since the manuscripts of the good book can only be traced to the 20th century. The other proponents of homosexuality argue that most fundamental Christians are hypocrites who have discarded all the other topics in the tome of Leviticus apart from the one or two verses on homosexuality. Thus, selective amnesia only promotes literalism instead of ‘contextualism’. Consequence s of declaring homosexuality as an abomination The consequences of socially constructing homosexuals and homosexuality as an abomination according to the film â€Å"The Bible Tells Me So† are destroyed family relationships and discrimination of the homosexuals by the society. The film indicates that several gay persons and their families have to live with the prejudice by the society for condoning what is considered immoral and against the good book. The relations among the family members may also be strained since no one would want to accept or associate with homosexuals as members of their family. On the other hand, constructing homosexuality as an abomination may open the door for abuse of gay rights by their opponents.Advertising Looking for essay on art and design? Let's see if we can help you! Get your first paper with 15% OFF Learn More The abuse may be in the form of discrimination from participating in social events, church activities and free interaction. In fact, the society may internalize the selective amnesia approach when relating to the homosexuals irrespective of their feelings and freedom of choice. The perspective of the film of homosexuality Reflectively, the film â€Å"The Bible Tells Me So† seems to suggest that homosexuality is based out of choice. Despite knowing about it in the early years, most the homosexuals are afraid to declare their sexuality to the society due to fear. For instance, Jake and the other homosexuals in the film are afraid of the perception of the society towards their choice of sexuality. I support the view that homosexuality is based on personal choice. I don’t believe that somebody can be born gay. As an individual grows up, several external factors in the environment may influence his or her views on sexual direction. For instance, very close and prolonged attachment to a member of the same sex may eventually lead to development of sexual feelings for that person.

Modern Marriage, only a status symbol Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1500 words

Modern Marriage, only a status symbol - Essay Example The Modern American wedding has become much more of commercial saga generating a massive turnover every year. Wedding planners, florists, caterers, hairstylists, clothes, designers, have all got their fortunes connected to the wedding industry. According to statistics 2 "the average American wedding costs $22,360 and has 168 guests, who give 100 gifts that cost an average of $85 each, meaning the net loss to the couple is $13,860..the average guest spends $500 to attend a wedding-not including plane tickets." The statistics do not end here though. The figures get more and more perturbing as it is revealed that "43% of couples say they spent more on their wedding than they had planned."3There is an increase in thematic weddings like Disney World "Fairy Tale Wedding" where for the price of $2,500 a bride can arrive in a glass coach pulled by four dappled gray ponies.4 All these figures and statistics really provoke a disturbing query in our minds which is whether the modern commercial marriage is now deinstitutionalized to the extent of a mere commercial saga The United States has seen deterioration in the institution of marriage during the past many decades (Cherlin 2004:848-861). There has been a transition of the essence of marriage from So is it possible to say that while the practical importance of marriage has hit an all time low, it has gained a symbolic significance Is it merely a mark of prestige and personal achievement Consider only some of the expenses the modern bride and groom go through for the ceremony of marriage. According to a commercial website 5,the Groom pays for the Bride's rings, Boutonnire for the groom and ushers ,groom's present to bridegroom's presents to ushers and best man, ties and gloves for the ushers ,clergy member's cost ,corsages for the immediate members of both families; also the bride's going away corsage ,bachelor dinner (optional, and usually given by best man or ushers) ,rehearsal dinner (optional, but is usual) ,accommodations for out-of-town ushers and the honeymoon. This list is not exhaustive though and the bride has to pay for a similar list of expenditure. What happens then, after such a grand wedding Every year the government issues alarming figures of divorce rate statistics, many homes are broken and the children are displaced. Academic opinion and research has spoken of the weakening of the social norms that regulate people's behaviour in this regard. This is another symbol of the deteriorating society where there is a sort of a "taken-for-granted" norm that allows people to go on with their lives with nobody questioning their behaviour (Cherlin2004:848-849, Whitehead 2001:6-16). The wedding as a status symbol Recent weddings have become little less than individual achievements. "In the distant past, a wedding was an event at which two kinship groups formed an alliance. More recently, it has been an event organized and paid for by parents, at which they display their approval and support for their child's marriage" (Cherlin 2004:848-849) So despite its destabilisation as an "institution", the American Wedding has become "an