answersLogoWhite

0

25 cents

User Avatar

Wiki User

15y ago

What else can I help you with?

Continue Learning about Economics

Why did the economy of the Philippines fall into disarray after having such strong growth in the 60s and 70s?

Ferdinand Marcos embezzled money from the Treasury and oversaw much corruption.


What were the more popular places in the 60s?

Drive-in movie theaters were popular social gathering places for young people in the 1960s. Older men often socialized at barbershops or bowling alleys.


Why do many governments often award grants to business setting up in certain area of the country?

Many countries have the vast majority of their population clustered in a small area, and would like to spread it out more. For example, Brazil's population lives almost entirely in cities on the coast, and the biggest cities (think Sao Paulo, one of the biggest cities in the world) are quite overcrowded. The majority of the interior is totally rural. Brazil greatly encourages businesses and people to move to the interior, and in the 60s moved the capital into the interior.


Was Andrew Carnegie a good guy or a bad guy?

This is a hard question to answer, because things are rarely all black or all white. While Andrew Carnegie was a brilliant businessman who made millions in the steel industry, by many accounts, he was also a relentless and driven boss who did not want to give his workers the pay they deserved. But while it would be easy to dismiss him as just another greedy business executive, he also seems to have realized that life should not just be about making millions. When he was in his 60s, he sold his businesses and devoted the rest of his life to charitable work and philanthropy. He funded libraries and museums, he created an institute for the study of peace, and he even founded a university. So, as you can see, at some points in his life, you might be able to make a case for him being a bad guy, yet at other times, he was absolutely what we would consider a good guy.


How long to pay off the national debt?

Estimating the time it will take to pay off the national debt depends on future revenues and expenses--not just the current amount owed. If expenditures are productive--that is, they grow the economy and generate better-paying jobs, then tax revenues will rise faster. Projections are largely hokum. Consequently, projections into the far future are hokum compounded. Your formula would be garbage-in, garbage-out. What we must do is be pragmatic and look more at policies and less at mathematics. Do our policies channel resources from the poor and middle classes to a small élite of wealthy plutocrats? If so, we may never see an end to the accumulating debt. If our policies, on the other hand, take revenue at a maximum income-tax rate of 90% (what it was during the 40s, 50s, and into the 60s) from those whose taxable (not gross) income is $1 million and up, and if we invest the revenue in new income-producing R&D and technologies, then we may be surprised at how quickly we will be able to reduce the national debt. Keep in mind that during the final two years of the Clinton Administration we were running annual surpluses. Bush cut taxes mostly on the wealthy élite (along with enforcement of the tax laws) and the result speaks for itself.