Write about what the government did to fix the situation and if it was effective or not.What did the government do during this time to…

Write about what the government did to fix the situation and if it was effective or not.What did the government do during this time to either help or hinder the improvement of the economy? Consider what policies were put in place by the government. This is where you will discuss fiscal policy, monetary policy, and supply side policy (most countries don’t actively use supply-side policy, so if the country you are focusing on did not use supply side policy, you don’t need to discuss it here).What was the intended impact of these government policies? Note: government policies are not always effective, this is asking about the objective or goal of the government policies, not necessarily if these worked or not.What was the actual impact of government policies? As objectively as possible, were there policies effective or not? Why?

Sample Solution
principles of liberty, equality and fraternity are not to be treated as separate items in a trinity. They form a union of trinity in the sense that to divorce one from the other is to defeat the very purpose of democracy’. (Krishna Iyer, V.R, p. 32). For Ambedkar the three principles of liberty, equality and fraternity are the foundation stones of a politically free society. He says, ‘Liberty cannot be divorced from equality; equality cannot be divorced from fraternity. With equality, liberty would produce that supremacy of the few over the many. Equality without liberty would kill individual initiative. Without fraternity, liberty and equality could not become a natural course of things. It would require a constable to enforce them. We must begin by acknowledging the facet that there is complete absence of two things in Indian society. One of these is equality’. (Krishna Iyer, V.R, p. 33) Ambedkar further warns that Indian society is rooted in the caste contradictions. A politically free India should first root out its social contradictions. He warns, ‘On the social place we have in India a society based on the principle of graded inequality, which means elevation for some and degradation for others. On the economic plane, we have a society, in which there are some who have immense wealth as against many who live in abject poverty. On the 26th January 1950, we are going to enter into a live of It contradictions. In politics we will have equality and in social and economic life we will have inequality. In politics we will be recognizing the principle of one-man one vote and one vote one value. In our social and economic life, we shall, by reason of our social and economic structure, continue to deny the principle of one-man one value. How long shall we continue to live this life of contradictions? How long shall we continue to deny equality in our social and economic life? If we continue to deny it for long, we will do only by putting our political democracy in peril. We must remove this contradiction at the earliest possible moment or else those who suffer from inequality will blow up the structure of political democracy which this Assembly has so laboriously built up.’ In this context we should notice the prophetic claim of Ambedkar. His exposure to western liberalism and adherence to social democracy always have predominance in his concept of an ideal Indian political society.>GET ANSWER Let’s block ads! (Why?)

Do you need any assistance with this question?
Send us your paper details now
We’ll find the best professional writer for you!

 



error: Content is protected !!