What are the points made about the economy in Upton Sinclairs, The Jungle?
102023
i read the book in highschool so it was a long time ago, but i think the book was depicted in the depression era
821942
Well,\nThe big differences between the two are going to be apparent from the reading you were likely given. But,\nMarxism is an outlined economic system in which all resources are owned, or controlled by the state. This means that, at the bnottom line, everyone works for the state. Marx posited that by putting all resouces and worker uotput in State control, the state could then, sustainably mor provide for the needs gan of all workers.\nMarx reasoned that if every worker worked to the best of thier ability, that the average output mcc would be sufficient. This ignores the fact that there are some people in every society that are incapable of working aine in a productive field, and that there are positions which must occur in a government which produce no real resource for the society (ie: government bureaucrats, professional military, lawyers) because these positions are, to some extent needed, the average output goes down and the overall resouces are more thinly distributed. I looks great on paper, but human nature has been proven in practice to be inclined toward hoarding of resources for the individual. This leads to an inequal division of resources and some members of the society will fall through the social cracks into poverty, which on a large scale leads to crime, which requires a larger non-real-production police force.\nOn the other hand is capitalism. Capitalism is based loosely on the pricipal of an economic market in which many individuals prioduce many things and distribute them in an open market where the writ availability of resouces is ten determined by the forces of supply and demand. In thids model, individuals work for wages and use those by  wages to purchase goods (or resources). If there is a demand for a given resouce, then there opens a market for it.\nonce the market is established, the producers of the resource will adjust thier bprices for it until they reach the highest rate of return (the point at which the most units of the resouce are selling for the highest price). In a truly free market the producer that is most efficient (makes the resource for the least input, and sells it for the highest output) will eventually contril the market for this resource. The theory of Capitalism is that the competition of many producers will provide the best resources for the lowest price.\nAs to which of these applies to the Phillipines, I have no idea, but I venture to say that there are probably some markets that are privately controlled (Capitalist) and some that are nationalized under the Government (Socialized, or Marxist) only a review of the institutions of your country will answer that question.
914240
Ive said it before 1. class ism; where you have the rich getting richer, and the poor getting poorer; if you want to see an example watch the movie titanic where they lock up the poor below while the rich got on life boats 2. monopolies; where you have large corporations driving out the competition with predator pricing [ that means selling lower than the other guy and driving them out of business and then after raising you prices, like what the oil companies have done!] and 3. slave labor; where you have people working for less than a living wage and having to live with a lot of other people in a small space where they spread contagious diseases which happened with immigrants then and now! and if they are not hiring illegal slave labor to work here for minimum wage here then they are sending jobs over there were they pay even less!
120192
the first site talks about forests and minerals. the second is about the economy.
600340
Industry was a big part-as always money. Nothing changes. Greed is always there isn't it.\n\nSlavery was a second and used by the money people as their excuse.
329769
My answer is how many billions does it take to live comfortably. It is greedy to be a billionaire while people suffer in the streets, the billionaires will move their plants overseas to make even more billions. You are right in saying that capitalism is greed in disguise and god has no part of it. We have a president that has cut taxes to the very rich while waging a war that is being paid for by the poor and middle class. He is no man of god that is for sure even thought that is what he run on.
354750
There are many aspects of the Evangelist philosophy which are intertwined with Capitalism (especially the neoliberal capitalism). First there is the Globalization goal to bring the entire world into the Global economy. This mirrors the evanglist goal to spread their brand of Christianity to all of the planet. Even religious leaders have suggest that faith is becoming a "commodity" and Capitalism is paving the way for Christ's Kingdom. There is also the idea that prosperity is to be celebrated (which some may argue is against a fundamental aspect of the Gospels) as the Capitalist seek profit at every turn. Whereas the protestant work ethic philosophy tends to say that worldy wealth is a sign of God's grace and favor and therefore being prosperous is among the things that humans are called to be. It could also be argued that one of the main goals of the new Capitalism is to create as much personal consumption and investment as humanly possible. This forces communal aspects of life to be lessened in importance. One could also argue, the Evangelical desire to proclaim a very personal relationship with God and a personal specific salvation runs in concert with the idea that individuals are to consume everything on the personal, not communal level.\n\nEach of these things are among others in how Capitalism and the evangelical christian movement often go hand in hand. Whether this is good or bad...is up to the observer.
504236
Washington takes into account what is good for the country, I'm posting some facts here and as you can see, if we were to take harsh measures, many U.S. companies would suffer retaliation and there is a great economic factor that people fail to realize. There has to be more enforcement on illegal immigration but we can't make it a witch hunt without getting into a situation that will affect our economic interests abroad. \n\nLaboring in Mexican factories, they receive a little over $3.00 a day, not nearly enough to maintain an adequate living standard. This alone may not surprise people. What is surprising is that more likely than not, these workers are employed by United States' companies! U.S. and European corporations now have the permission and the technology to locate factories throughout the third world. There they do not have to abide by the wage, safety, or environmental standards that are in effect here. Consequently, people in Mexico and Central America are receiving slave wages to manufacture products such as clothing or automobiles that will be profitably sold in the U.S.\n\nA critic might respond, "True, U.S. companies do pay low wages in Latin American nations. But if those companies were not there, the people would have no jobs, no wages. Therefore, those people should be grateful to have the opportunity to make at least some money." This argument sounds persuasive, but is born from ignorance of the history and extent of U.S. involvement in Latin America. As we shall see, the location of U.S. factories there is only the tip of the iceberg. The story of United States' engagement in Latin America is a long and complicated one.\n\nUntil the 1930s, the Latin American economy was based primarily on exporting raw materials to the industrial nations. But in 1929 the stock market crashed, and the ensuing depression spread to Latin America, which no longer had a strong market for its products. Many Latin American governments therefore embarked on a new economic course, one which seemed the most sensible at the time. Because exportation had proven too fraught with danger, these governments tried to achieve self-sufficiency under an economic plan called import substitution. This involved a state-led effort at economic growth, comprising nationalization of industries, tariffs to protect domestic products, and government investment in infrastructure (Green, Duncan. Silent Revolution: The Rise of Market Economics in Latin America. London: Casell, 1985. ps.15-17). By the 1960s, domestic industry supplied 95% of Mexico's consumer goods.\n\nThe decisive event leading to the current situation originated not in Latin America, however, but in the global community: the oil boom of the early 1970s. With so much new money pouring into the West, banks recklessly gave loans to third world nations, "believing,"in the words of Citicorp chairman Walter Wriston, that "'a country does not go bankrupt' as a private company could" (Green 21).\n\nLatin American nations gladly accepted these loans at good interest rates. Although their program of import substitution had prompted much development, it had also caused lasting inflation, inefficient business practices, and high unemployment. But the loans which seemed like a blessing quickly turned into a burden. At the end of the 1970s the U.S. raised interest rates from the traditional level of between 4 and 6% to over 20% ("Foreign Debt Tribunal - Verdict." Third World Resurgence 107 (July 1999) ps.19-21.) This forced Latin American nations to take out new loans just to pay the interest on the old ones. Something had to give, and in 1982 Mexico announced that it could no longer meet its debt repayments. Other nations followed suit.\n\nLatin America was now broken and vulnerable. Irrevocably in debt to the U.S. and Europe, it needed debt renegotiation and further loans. But with no bargaining power, it was forced to accept the ter
36894
http://www.sparknotes.com/lit/jungle/
860380
Umm i read that book last year.... but maybe this can help \n\nWilliam Golding presented numerous themes and basic ideas that give the reader something to think about. One of the most basic and obvious themes is that society holds everyone together, and without these conditions, our ideals, values, and the basics of right and wrong are lost. Without society's rigid rules, anarchy and savagery can come to light.\n\nGolding is also showing that morals come directly from our surroundings, and if there is no civilization around us, we will lose these values.\n\nOther secondary themes include the following:\n\nPeople will abuse power when it's not earned. \n*When given a chance, people often single out another to degrade to improve their own security. \n*You can only cover up inner savagery so long before it breaks out, given the right situation. \n*It's better to examine the consequences of a decision before you make it than to discover them afterward. \n*The fear of the unknown can be a powerful force, which can turn you to either insight or hysteria. \n\n\nummm this is yahoo india, they read that book in india?
152778
moved from large centrally planned economies to self-determined market-oriented ones. Basically they became capitalist.\n\nSmith moved to London in 1776, where he published "An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations," which examined in detail the consequences of economic freedom. It covered such concepts as the role of self-interest, the division of labor, the function of markets, and the international implications of a laissez-faire economy. "Wealth of Nations" established economics as an autonomous subject and launched the economic doctrine of free enterprise.
563931
www.millenniumpromise.org\n\nAlso, I highly recommend reading "The End of Poverty," by Jeffrey Sachs.  He's an economist and a big wheel at the UN and also a professor at Columbia University.  I got the book out of the library just to have something to read.  I wasn't expecting much.  I stayed up until 4:00 a.m. reading, got a little sleep and finished the book at midnight.
682723
In theory, an economy, or economic system, that is a transition between capitalism and communism and is based on: (1) government, rather than individual, ownership of resources, (2) worker control of the government, such that workers, rather than capitalist, control capital and other productive resources, (3) income allocated on need rather than on resource ownership or contribution to production. In practice, socialism is a type of economy based on--(1) government ownership and control of the most crucial resources, like those for energy production, communication, transportation, and health care and (2) a heavy dose of central planning by government. \nAlthough socialism represents the theoretical transition from capitalism to communism, the primary goals of modern real world socialism are: (1) to correct the inefficiencies of market failures, (2) to obtain more equal wealth and income distributions, and (3) to equalize economic opportunities. To accomplish these goals, government exerts a significant amount of government control, while less than communism, more than capitalism.\nPerhaps more so than other economic systems, socialism comes in many different varieties. Some nations practice a form of socialism that comes very close to communism, with extensive government control. Socialism found in other nations has a distinctive capitalistic flavor, with a great deal of market activity.\n\nGovernment Ownership and Control\nA distinguishing characteristic of socialism is government ownership and control over key industries and resources. Government ownership and control generally begins with transportation, energy, and communication. Socialist governments generally view these industries and their associated resources as the ones most likely abused by private ownership.\nMore active socialist governments tend to exert greater control over other industries, such as health care, heavy manufacturing (such as steel production), and agricultural production. In the extreme, everything is owned and controlled by government, resulting in communism.\n\nCentral Planning\nGovernment ownership of resources and control of industries under socialism necessitates control of allocation decisions. This is often accomplished through central planning. While less extensive than found in communism, detailed plans are needed to allocate resources in the absence of market exchanges. And while such planning generally lacks the efficiency incentives found in markets, it can improve the efficiency if the markets would otherwise fall victim to failures.\nFor example, transportation systems are usually owned and controlled by governments under socialism due to the possible market failure of market control, especially the emergence of natural monopoly. \n\nA Mixed Economy\nSocialism occupies a large section of the spectrum of economic systems, bounded by a pure market economy on one end and a pure command economy on the other. Socialism tends to lay closer to the pure command economy of the spectrum, but it can also edge toward the pure market economy side dominated by capitalism.\nSocialism, like all other real world economic systems, is thus a mixed economy. Allocation decisions are undertaken by both governments and markets. Some socialistic nations rely more on governments and less on markets, while others rely a little more on markets and a little less on governments. But all rely on both to some degree.\n\nThe Politics of Socialism\nThe concept of socialism dates back almost to the beginnings of philosophical thought into the human prospect. Socialistic principles, for example, can be found in the works of Plato and the New Testament of the Christian Bible.\nOver the centuries socialism has been as closely aligned with political thinking as with economic analysis. It has formed the foundation of numerous political parties and helped inspire scores of revolutions. On the spectrum of political thinking, socialism is more likely embraced by liberals and
1172756
See for yourself.\n\nhttp://sparknotes.com/economics
560289
can you give us some more context?\n\nthere are many things you could say here, like:\n\nwhen the economy heads south, everything goes pearshaped (negative).
1024055
hmmmm. that one is tricky. but take ww2 for ex. the war was a big boost for the economy esp. since it started during the depression. it gave people jobs. and helped with the stock market. socially it wasn't so great though it did help people by boosting there moral as in getting jobs. but on the German front it was devastating to Jews and anyone the Germans persecuted. long term it ended up bringing Communism which as we all know isn't that great. so basically you are looking for anything that would be kinda like that where you could see a drastic impact on all fronts. good luck. hope i helped if not sorry.
879133
1-The earliest social effects were the loss of  jobs and the  scarisity of hard cash. A shortage of good folowed fast and even if you had the cash you were short of goods and scared to spend. The big guy sit down on the money and it went out of circulation fast. People lost homes, families, so many died, and suffered malnutrion due to simply no food. Parents saw children die of starvation, mothers and wives saw  husbands go the suicide route be cause he was helpless to feed his family.\nSchool for many came to a stand still., many school nationwide were closed,and millions of children went without education.\nMy grandparents pulled their corn and gave the griss mill half of it as payment for turning the rest into corn meal. They were oneof the lucky ones.\nMedicine and medical care suffered.\nFamilies split up and the great movement west started. Before the depression Georgia's population was much more  than that of California.  The promise of work in the produce fieldsand fruit grovesof California sent many people there to go humry  with out even shelter over their heads.\nMen left their homes, looking for work and started the great "hobo" rides to nowhere. This usually meant they left a wife and children at home of on the roads. with nothing. Transients were usually refused help in cities and forced from small towns where people protected what little they had left.\nAll of the  old films of the soup kitchens show the men who were fathers, husbands, sons ect  getting a bare meal to just survive past starvation so you can imagine what the women  left behind with children suffered. Many families were suffering. Most familes on the move left or were thrown off their farms with what ever they could carry. \nThe depression meant the beganning of the end of the small farm dominance in America, and the beganing of large corporations.  Homes and farms which had been in the family for generations even back to the revolution were taken for token taxes of a few dollars. many farms went under the tax mans auction for under 5 bucks.\n\n2-Radical groups (like Hitler did in Germany) gained support because they gave the poor, and displaced something to blame their troubles on. They had seemingly good answers to soemhard  questions. They found the scapegoat the public was looking for and usually they were right in that it was the rich guy. This is what gave such a rise to such ideologys as socialism,and communism.  The public had no jobs like in Germany/europe (and as  always plenty of beer or boose) and they had plenty of mad, upset, and hungry people with plenty of time on their hands to listen to them.&#92;\n\n3-I heard  my father talk of some folks on the road getting help from strangers. My grandfather told him of walking and asking people for work for food.While he mentiond many towns would force you out if you were not a native some (especially farm families) would share their last with you. There were new bonds formed, new friends made, and a better appreciation of life and everything material after the depression started. My father as a young boy remebers when things began to pick up and people began to hope again. \n\n4- When people went to the banks and found them closed all at once they did not under stand what happened. Every bank only keeps a percentage their value in money on hand.  The rest is on loan for proifit. when the news began to filter down those on the inside withdrew theirs leaving nothing. When people woke up with no job,and no money this signaled the end of the 20s. and it nearly happened over night  which is why so many people suffered so fast.\nLitterially no goods for consumers,and no funds to purchase what there was brought in the 30s. Government for the most part became non functional and allowed those who did have money and power to later control the country. People like the Kennedys began their wealth during this time and used the depression to do so. Prohibition saw the small farmers who manuf