The correct answer to this question is not completely clear. Different people can interpret history in different ways and the answers given here generally call for interpretation. I will narrow this down for you and give you the answer I think is best, but I strongly suggest that you consult your textbook and/or class notes to determine what answer you are supposed to give.
Option A is clearly wrong. If we had had more “busts” than “booms” over time, we would not have increased our wealth as we have. Option D is also wrong. People care deeply about the state of the economy as it determines their ability to have a good standard of living.
The rest of the answers are at least somewhat plausible, based on how you define things like “much of” American history and “a strong role for government.” I would pick Option E as the best answer, but others could see things differently.
Option B is plausible because there have been times in our country’s history when economic issues were left more to state governments than to the national government. However, this question says “local governments,” which means city governments, and I do not think that is a strong answer.
Option C is a strong contender. We generally say that the American government engaged in laissez faire for much of the 19th century. If we accept that it was hands off during that time, we could say that was “much of” American history. However, I would argue that even then, the government took a fairly strong role in the economy. For example, the government subsidized the building of the transcontinental railroads, which helped contribute to a major economic boom after the Civil War. For these reasons, I think Option E is the best answer.
No comments:
Post a Comment